State v. Hagan, No. 56680

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtSUNDBERG
Citation387 So.2d 943
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Lee HAGAN, Jr. and James George Stephens, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 56680
Decision Date04 September 1980

Page 943

387 So.2d 943
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Lee HAGAN, Jr. and James George Stephens, Appellees.
No. 56680.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 4, 1980.

Page 944

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Eula Tuttle Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellees.

SUNDBERG, Chief Justice.

Appellee Lee Hagan, Jr. was charged by information with using more than one trawl net in Charlotte Harbor, Florida, and with using a trawl with a net greater than twenty-five feet, contrary to chapter 76-343, section 1, Laws of Florida, as amended by chapter 77-525, section 1, Laws of Florida. Appellee James George Stephens was charged with violation of the same statute for pulling more than one twenty-five-foot net in Charlotte Harbor. Appellees filed motions to dismiss the charges on the ground that the statute was unconstitutionally vague in defining the proscribed conduct. Following a hearing on the motions, the trial court entered its order holding the statute unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution (1972).

Chapter 77-525, section 1, Laws of Florida, provides:

Section 1. No trawling operation shall use more than one trawl net which shall not exceed 25 feet in length, for the taking of shrimp in the Charlotte County waters of Charlotte Harbor, in the inland waters of the county, or within one-half mile of such inland waters.

The trial court found the special law unconstitutional for the following reasons:

(T)he special law is unconstitutionally vague for failure to identify with particularity the boundaries of the prohibited netting areas. The Court specifically finds that the terms "Charlotte County waters of Charlotte Harbor", "in the inland waters of the County", and "within one-half mile of such inland waters" are insufficient to allow the average person to readily identify the boundaries of the protected area;

2. (T)he special law is unconstitutionally vague for failure to define the terms "trawling operation" and "trawl net." Specifically, the law purports to prohibit certain activities of "trawling operations" and by implication would permit those same activities by other

Page 945

than "trawling operations". The Court finds that the average person cannot be expected from a plain reading of the law to determine whether a contemplated activity would or would not constitute a "trawling operation" and whether a particular net is or is not a "trawl net";

3. (T)he special law is too vague to form the basis for a criminal prosecution of a natural person since it appears on its face not to proscribe any conduct of natural persons, but proscribes only certain activities of "trawling operations" without defining that term to include natural persons;

4. (T)he special law violates Article III, Section 11, (a)(19) of the Florida Constitution prohibiting special laws pertaining to fresh water hunting or fishing in that any reasonable interpretation of the term "inland waters of the County" would include...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 practice notes
  • State v. Peters, No. 87-652
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 15, 1988
    ...the charge against Peters was based on probable cause and the offense was committed within the officer's presence. See State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla.1980) ("Appellees may not challenge the constitutionality of a portion of the statute which does not affect them."); Sandstrom v. Le......
  • State v. TM, No. 2D98-3778.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 17, 2000
    ...parent's decision to allow his or her child to travel in public areas late at night without supervision. STANDING Citing State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943 (Fla.1980), the State argues that juveniles in a delinquency proceeding may not challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance on the basi......
  • Hughes v. State, No. 3D05-1767.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 12, 2006
    ...law or related statutory provisions which define the term.'" State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla.2000) (quoting State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980)). Section 860.13(2) In any prosecution charging careless or reckless operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the c......
  • Enoch v. State, No. 1D10–3443.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 27, 2012
    ...terms so unclear that a person of common intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning. SeeU.S. Const. amend. V; State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla.1980). The motion alleged also that both statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Florida Constitution because they are susce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
78 cases
  • State v. Peters, No. 87-652
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 15, 1988
    ...the charge against Peters was based on probable cause and the offense was committed within the officer's presence. See State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla.1980) ("Appellees may not challenge the constitutionality of a portion of the statute which does not affect them."); Sandstrom v. Le......
  • State v. TM, No. 2D98-3778.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 17, 2000
    ...parent's decision to allow his or her child to travel in public areas late at night without supervision. STANDING Citing State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943 (Fla.1980), the State argues that juveniles in a delinquency proceeding may not challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance on the basi......
  • Hughes v. State, No. 3D05-1767.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 12, 2006
    ...law or related statutory provisions which define the term.'" State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla.2000) (quoting State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980)). Section 860.13(2) In any prosecution charging careless or reckless operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the c......
  • Enoch v. State, No. 1D10–3443.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 27, 2012
    ...terms so unclear that a person of common intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning. SeeU.S. Const. amend. V; State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla.1980). The motion alleged also that both statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Florida Constitution because they are susce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT