State v. Davis, 5D01-3732.
| Decision Date | 07 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D01-3732.,5D01-3732. |
| Citation | 838 So.2d 696 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Alan Wayne DAVIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee and Mary G. Jolley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and A.S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
The State appeals the trial court's order dismissing the count of the information charging Alan Wayne Davis with illegal dumping in violation of section 403.413(4)(c) of the Florida Statutes (2000). Concluding that the trial court erred in ruling that the statute excludes property owners from prosecution for dumping on their own land, we reverse. Davis was charged by information with, among other things, illegally dumping litter on his property. He filed a motion to dismiss the illegal dumping charge, claiming that the statute did not prohibit owners from dumping on their own private property. The trial court agreed and therefore granted Davis' motion to dismiss the count.
Florida's litter law, section 403.413 of the Florida Statutes (2000), is contained in the Environmental Control section of the Florida Statutes Chapter 403, Part I, Pollution Control. The Legislature explained its intent regarding pollution control as follows:
§ 403.021(6), Fla. Stat. (2000). The litter law which Davis was charged with violating reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 403.413(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000).
The statute plainly states it is unlawful for "any person" to dump litter in or on any private property without differentiating such persons between owners and non-owners of property. In the instant case, Davis clearly qualifies as being "any person". Thus, in dismissing the charge against Davis, the trial court improperly went beyond the plain reading of the statute in an attempt to uncover a legislative intent that the private property in question must be the property of another.
In so ruling, the trial court first concluded that the statute intended that the property owner be a "victim" of the crime of dumping and then proceeded to interpret the facts in this case as failing to create such a victim because Davis dumped on his own property. The trial court explained its reasoning as follows:
Clearly, the prohibited activity is the dumping of litter, either on public property, waterways, or private property. However, one is allowed to "dump litter" on private property if the owner of the property agrees, but the litter dumped cannot cause a public nuisance or violate any law. Therefore, the statute creates a victim. The owner of private property who has litter dumped on his property without his consent is a victim. Similarly, the owner of private property who gives consent to the dumping becomes a victim if the dumping creates a nuisance. Obviously no one would give permission to a person to create a public nuisance on his private property.
We disagree. The statute merely defines the illegal activity—it does not create a victim.
Second, the trial court concluded that the legislature did not intend to create a felony public nuisance statute, which would be the result in the instant case since the violation under which Davis is charged is a public nuisance statute. Again, a plain reading of the statute authorizes prosecution if the dumping is in violation of any other state or local law, rule, or regulation. Here, Davis was charged with violating both section 823.01 of the Florida Statutes and the Seminole County Code, each of which qualifies as being "any other state or local law, rule or regulation."
Finally, the trial court explained that as further evidence that the legislature did not intend for a private property owner to be prosecuted for violating section 403.413(4)(c), section 403.413(6)(f) of the Florida Statutes requires the defendant to pay damages if convicted of the felony violation of the statute, together with court costs and attorney's fees. The actual wording of section 403.413(6)(f) is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...He filed a motion to dismiss the information, which was granted. The state appealed and the order was reversed. See State v. Davis, 838 So.2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). After a jury trial, Davis was convicted as charged. He was sentenced to a year and a day in prison, followed by one year on ......
-
Cosio v. State
...property can, in certain circumstances, constitute a violation of the Florida Litter Law. See State v. Davis, 838 So.2d 696, 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Monaco, J., concurring specially) (explaining that by reading subsection(4)(c) of the statute conjunctively, "if one is going to dump litter ......
-
State v. Foster, 5D02-2583.
...the action relying upon its disposition of a similar case, the facts of which are included in this court's opinion in State v. Davis, 838 So.2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The reasoning and disposition included in Davis are also dispositive of the instant case. The order of dismissal is vacate......