Burns v. Rozen

• Citation: 201 So.2d 629
• Decision Date: 18 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. I-313,I-313
• Parties: Haydon BURNS, Governor of the State of Florida, Tom Adams, Secretary of State, Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, Bud Dickinson, Comptroller, Broward Williams, Treasurer, Floyd Christian, Supervisor of Public Instruction, and Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture, as and constituting the State Board of Conservation of the State of Florida, and Randolph Hodges, as Director of the Board of Conservation of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Jack R. ROZEN and L. S. Kenny, d/b/a Pinellas Seafood, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 629

201 So.2d 629

Haydon BURNS, Governor of the State of Florida, Tom Adams, Secretary of State, Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, Bud Dickinson, Comptroller, Broward Williams, Treasurer, Floyd Christian, Supervisor of Public Instruction, and Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture, as and constituting the State Board of Conservation of the State of Florida, and Randolph Hodges, as Director of the Board of Conservation of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Jack R. ROZEN and L. S. Kenny, d/b/a Pinellas Seafood, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. I-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 1967.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Chastain, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip S. Bennett, Dept. Atty. for Board of Conservation, for appellants.

Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellees.

JOHNSON, Judge.

A complaint seeking a declaratory decree of appellees' rights under Section 370.08(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was filed by the appellees in the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida. The appellees sought a declaration that the above mentioned statute prohibited the taking of food fish with a purse seine, purse gill net or other net using rings or other devices on the lead line thereof, from the territorial waters of the State of Florida and had no extraterritorial effect. In the alternative the appellees sought a declaration that said statute was unconstitutional insofar as it affected their rights.

The provisions of Section 370.08(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. are:

'(3) Use of purse seines, gill nets, and pound nets, etc.; penalty. No person may take food fish with a purse seine, purse gill net, or other net using rings or other devices on the lead line thereof, through which a purse line is drawn, or pound net, or have any food fish so taken in his possession for sale or shipment. The provisions of this section shall not apply to shrimp nets or to pound nets or purse seines when used for the taking of menhaden fish only. Any person violating this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment of not less than six months or more than one year.'

In this decree the able chancellor declared that the proscriptions in the statute applied only to the taking of food fish by Florida citizens within the territorial waters of this state. This was so because the statute did not clearly indicate an intent to regulate the conduct of Florida citizens beyond the territorial limits of this state. He further declared that the statute prohibiting the taking of food fish by certain equipment was a valid exercise of the police power of the state and insofar as it applied to a taking within the territorial waters of the state did not deny to plaintiffs the equal protection of the law nor deprive them of property without due process of law. The decree also declares that it is not unlawful under F.S. § 370.08(3), F.S.A. to possess in Florida fish which have been caught, by any means whatsoever, from the waters outside the territorial limits of Florida.

Both parties agree that the State of Florida has the power to enact legislation regulating and controlling the operation of vessels and acts of citizens of this State on water outside the territorial limits of the State of Florida as well as on water within its territorial limits. Skiriotes v. State of Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 61 S.Ct. 924, 85 L.Ed. 1193 (1941); United States v. States of Louisiana, etc., 363 U.S. 1, 80 S.Ct. 961, 4 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1960). The only dispute is whether the State of Florida by the statute in question purports to exercise authority over its citizens in waters outside the territorial limits of Florida.

In construction of statutes a general rule to be used is set forth in 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 487:

'Unless the intention to have a statute operate beyond the limits of the state or country is clearly expressed or indicated by its language, purpose, subject matter, or history, no legislation is presumed to be intended to operate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state or country enacting it. To the contrary, the presumption is that the statute is intended to have no extraterritorial effect, but to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the state or country enacting it, and it is generally so construed. An extraterritorial effect is not to be given statutes by implication. Accordingly, a statute is prima facie operative only as to persons or things within the territorial...