Federman v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, PARI-MUTUEL

• Citation: 414 So.2d 28
• Decision Date: 18 May 1982
• Docket Number: 81-541,Nos. 81-540,PARI-MUTUEL,81-542 and 81-543,s. 81-540
• Parties: Charles FEDERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OFWAGERING, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 28

414 So.2d 28

Charles FEDERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Appellee.

Nos. 81-540, 81-541, 81-542 and 81-543.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

May 18, 1982.

Appeals from the Divisions of Administrative Hearings and Pari-Mutuel Wagering.

Larry V. Bishins, Levine & Green and Bruce Green, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

David M. Maloney and Janice Scott, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The appellant Federman is a licensed horse trainer. He appeals from two orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings upholding the validity of rules promulgated by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering and two orders of the Division itself imposing discipline upon him for violation of those rules. We affirm.

For the most part, the legal issues Federman raises have already been directly and recently decided against him. Solimena v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 402 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 470 (Fla.1982); Calfin v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 391 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see also, Simmons v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, 407 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd, 412 So.2d 357 (Fla.1982).

In addition, however, he challenges the constitutional validity of a warrantless search of his automobile while it was parked at the Pompano Park racetrack. The search, which was effected without his express consent, ¹ and which revealed various hypodermic needles and other contraband, was conducted pursuant to Rule 7E-4.02(23), Florida Administrative Code. ² We uphold the validity both of the rule and the search on the authority of the uncannily similar case of Lanchester v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 16 Pa.Cmwlth. 85, 325 A.2d 648 (1974). Accord, Euster v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 431 F.Supp. 828 (E.D.Pa.1977) (following Lanchester ). The opinion in Lanchester is so exhaustive and well-reasoned that it would serve no useful purpose to do more than to express our approval.

Finally, there is no merit to the position that any of the factual findings against the appellant are not supported by substantial, competent evidence. Section 120.68(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).

Affirmed.

1 See Major v. State, 389 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 408 So.2d 1095 (Fla.1981), and cases cited.

2 The rule provides:

(23) The Florida State Racing Commission or the Steward representing the Florida State Racing Commission, investigating violations of law or the Rules of the Board, shall have the power to permit persons authorized by either of them to search the person, or enter and search the stables, rooms, vehicles and automobiles or other places within the track enclosure at which a race meeting is held, or other tracks or places where the horses...