Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 10 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65666,65666 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 546 Jimmie Lee ALEXANDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell and Dean Willbur, Asst. Public Defenders, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Marlyn J. Altman and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Robert Dowlut, Washington, D.C., for National Rifle Association, amicus curiae.
Petitioner appeals the Fourth District Court of Appeal's affirmance of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The district also held section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981), to be constitutional. Alexander v. State, 450 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
We hold that section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981), as modified by sections 790.25(5) and 790.001(15) & (16), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), is not unconstitutional. However, on the facts of this case, we hold that the trial court erred in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.
Petitioner was charged by information with carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981). He moved to dismiss the charge, citing an exception to the prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon found in section 790.25(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). That section provides:
(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.--Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.
Petitioner presents the following version of the facts leading up to his arrest. On September 7, 1982, petitioner, an employee of Wags, was sitting in the driver's seat of his car which was parked in the Wags parking lot. Police Officer Lerman asked petitioner for identification. In his sworn motion to dismiss petitioner asserted that when asked for the identification, petitioner opened his zippered pouch, looked inside it and was unable to find his identification, then zippered the pouch shut. On appeal to this Court, however, petitioner accepts the state's version of the facts as set forth in its traverse to the motion to dismiss as follows: When asked for identification petitioner said he had identification and began to unzip his black leather hand purse. He then stopped unzipping it, zipped it back up, and said he did not have his wallet or identification on his person at that time. The resolution of the issues in this case do not turn on this particular aspect of the facts, however. What occurred afterward is agreed upon by both parties. Lerman became suspicious of a bulky object in the pouch. He took the pouch from petitioner, opened it, found a firearm inside and arrested petitioner for possession of a concealed firearm. Petitioner's wallet, driver's license, and other forms of identification were found in the purse.
In the trial court petitioner argued that his gun was in a zippered gun case and thus was "securely encased" within the meaning of 790.001(16), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). "Securely encased" is defined in that section as follows:
(16) "Securely encased" means encased in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; in a snapped holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
The state argued that the object was a man's black leather hand purse and not a zippered gun case, pointing out that defendant's wallet, driver's license, and other forms of identification were later found inside.
The trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss, ruling that the bag was neither a zippered gun case nor a container that requires opening a cover or a lid for access and therefore was not securely encased. Petitioner pled nolo contendre, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed him on probation.
On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss and that section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981), as refined in sections 790.25(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), and 790.001(15), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), is unconstitutional. The district court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. Regarding the constitutional issue, the court held that the facial invalidity of a statute could be raised for the first time on appeal citing Trushin v. State, 425 So.2d 1126 (Fla.1983). It concluded, however, that the statutes in question are not void for vagueness.
Petitioner argues that this statutory scheme violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions because it is not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose and because it is so vague that it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is proscribed.
We have held that a statute is constitutional if it bears a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective and is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive. Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So.2d 9 (Fla.1974). The legislature has declared that the objectives of Chapter 790 are "to promote firearms safety and to curb and prevent the use of firearms and other weapons in crime and by incompetent persons without prohibiting the lawful use in defense of life, home, and property, and the use by United States or state military organizations, and as otherwise now authorized by law, including the right to use and own firearms for target practice and markmanship on target practice ranges or other lawful places, and lawful hunting and other lawful purposes." § 790.25(1), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1982). Certainly promoting firearms safety and crime prevention are permissible legislative objectives.
Next, we must determine if the means chosen in the statutes bear a reasonable relationship to those objectives. Section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1981),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poulakis v. Rogers, No. 08-15425 (11th Cir. 8/10/2009)
...7. The only time that the Florida Supreme Court has addressed the "securely encased" prong of § 790.25(5) was in 1985 in Alexander v. State, 477 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1985), when it found that the statute was constitutional, and that a zippered man's hand bag qualified as a "zippered gun case" s......
-
Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. of N. Fla.
...for immediate use.” Ch. 82–131, Laws of Fla. Almost thirty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court upheld this right in Alexander v. State, 477 So.2d 557, 558 (Fla.1985), concluding that an employee sitting in his parked car in the employer's parking lot has a right to possess a zippered pouch......
-
Reilly v. State, Dept. of Corrections
...Florida law, a facial challenge to a state statute may be raised for the first time on appeal of a criminal conviction. Alexander v. State, 477 So.2d 557, 559 (Fla.1985). The Eleventh Circuit found that Petitioner raised the facial challenges and the double jeopardy claims in his brief to t......
-
State v. Bennett
...to define the term. In its 1982 session, the legislature added a definition. Fla.Stat. § 790.001(16) (1993); see also Alexander v. State, 477 So.2d 557, 558 (Fla.1985) (applying new Two other states have statutory exceptions to general prohibitions on the transportation of firearms. See Cal......