State v. Hamilton, No. 55181
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | ADKINS; SUNDBERG, C. J., and ENGLAND |
| Citation | 388 So.2d 561 |
| Decision Date | 18 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 55181 |
| Parties | 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,042 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harry S. HAMILTON, Appellee. |
Page 561
v.
Harry S. HAMILTON, Appellee.
Page 562
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Martin S. Friedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sheri W. Smallwood, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Michael L. Bryant of Birr, Bryant & Saier, Gainesville, for appellee.
ADKINS, Justice.
This is an appeal from an order of the Alachua County Court which held section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977) unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section (3)(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
The appellee, hereinafter defendant, was charged with violating Florida's Air and Water Pollution Control Act:
It shall be a violation of this Chapter, and it shall be prohibited: (a) To cause pollution, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, so as to harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life or property.
§ 403.161(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1977). Pollution is defined as:
(T)he presence in the outdoor atmosphere or waters of the state of any substances, contaminants, noise, or man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, or radiological integrity of air or water in quantities or at levels which are or may be potentially harmful or injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, including outdoor recreation.
§ 403.031(2) Fla.Stat. (1977).
The state alleged that during construction of a shopping center defendant's agent or employee caused a retention basin to be placed within a known creosote deposit on the property. Water from the pond absorbed toxic pollutants from the creosote, including crystalline or liquid isometric phenos or phenolic-type compounds. A pump and pipe discharged the contaminated water from the pond into a ditch, which eventually led to Haile Sink, a source of drinking water for the city of Gainesville. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that the statute was unconstitutionally vague in that it failed to give adequate notice of the proscribed conduct.
The accepted test for vagueness is whether the statute is specific and clear enough to put persons of common intelligence and understanding on notice of the proscribed conduct. Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla.1979); Brown v. State, 358 So.2d 16 (Fla.1978). However, a defendant whose conduct clearly falls within the statutory prohibition may not complain of the absence of notice. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1974). The state argues the latter principle precludes defendant's notice challenge. The statute expressly prohibits contaminating state waters with any substance which is injurious to human health or animal, plant or aquatic life. Creosote is allegedly a known toxin which is deleterious to health and fatal if ingested. The record in this case does not support the state's proposition. Looking to the definition of creosote, one finds:
(A) colorless or yellowish oily liquid that has a burning smokey taste, contains a mixture of phenolic compounds . . . , is obtained by the distillation of wood tar, . . . and is used chiefly as an expectorant in chronic bronchitis and as a collector and frother in ore flotation.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 534 (1976). Contrary to the state's assertion, it is not clear that pumping water from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peters, No. 87-652
...that a statute must put persons of "common intelligence and understanding" on notice of the proscribed conduct, see State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.1980), others make clear that "there is no need for legislation to give fair warning except to those potentially subject to it. For ......
-
State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren, No. 53612
...receive an equitable construction in order not to defeat its general as well as its specific purpose." Finally, in State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1980), the court began its examination of state environmental protection legislation with the principle " 'A statute enacted for the ......
-
State v. Barnes, No. 96-01047
...Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 1857, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) (emphasis added). See also State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.1980) (defendant whose conduct clearly falls within statutory prohibition may not complain of the absence of Furthermore, given the st......
-
Fla. HURRICANE Prot. v. PASTINA, No. 4D08-4641.
...43 So.3d 900 so that their beneficial results may be felt to the fullest extent compatible with their terms. State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1980); Carmichael v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 291 F.3d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir.2002). Here, the circuit court, acting in its appellate c......
-
State v. Peters, 87-652
...that a statute must put persons of "common intelligence and understanding" on notice of the proscribed conduct, see State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.1980), others make clear that "there is no need for legislation to give fair warning except to those potentially subject to it. For ......
-
State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren, 53612
...receive an equitable construction in order not to defeat its general as well as its specific purpose." Finally, in State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1980), the court began its examination of state environmental protection legislation with the principle " 'A statute enacted for the ......
-
State v. Barnes, 96-01047
...Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 1857, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) (emphasis added). See also State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.1980) (defendant whose conduct clearly falls within statutory prohibition may not complain of the absence of Furthermore, given the st......
-
Fla. HURRICANE Prot. v. PASTINA, 4D08-4641.
...43 So.3d 900 so that their beneficial results may be felt to the fullest extent compatible with their terms. State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1980); Carmichael v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 291 F.3d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir.2002). Here, the circuit court, acting in its appellate c......