State v. Holden
| Decision Date | 24 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44415,44415 |
| Citation | 299 So.2d 8 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John W. HOLDEN, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Clinton M. T. Green, St. Petersburg, of the Law Offices of Clinton Marvin Tyler Green, Seminole, for appellee.
This case is before the Court on direct appeal of an order of the County Court for Pinellas County, dismissing a charge of disorderly intoxication because of the unconstitutionality of Florida Statutes, Section 856.011. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
On June 28, 1973, the appellee, John W. Holden, Jr., was informed against in two informations charging, to-wit: disorderly intoxication and resisting arrest. On the trial date, the appellee-defendant made a motion to dismiss the information charging disorderly intoxication because of the unconstitutionality of Fla.Stat. § 856.011. The trial court dismissed the charge of disorderly intoxication following stare decisis in that the statute had previously been declared unconstitutional by Judge Michael N. Athanson, County Judge in the County Court for Pinellas County in In Re Case of State v. Lucas, (Not Reported).
Florida Statutes, Section 856.011 provides:
'(1) No person in the state shall be intoxicated and endanger the safety of another person or property, and no person in the state shall be intoxicated or drink any alcoholic beverage in a public place or in or upon any public conveyance and cause a public disturbance.'
In order to evaluate whether a statute should be held unconstitutional as an abuse of the delegation of legislative power, this Court has set out certain guidelines for such a determination. In Knight and Wall Co. v. Bryant, 178 So.2d 5 (1965), this Court stated, in reiterating the rule from Ex parte Lewis, 101 Fla. 624, 135 So. 147, that:
'. . . (T)he Legislature may not delegate the power to enact a law, or . . . to exercise an unrestricted discretion in applying a law; but it may enact a law . . . designed to accomplish a general public purpose, and may expressly authorize designated officials within definite valid limitations to provide rules and regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its expressed general purpose.' Id. 178 So.2d at 7.
Clearly the statute under review is a delegation of power to arresting officers; however, this discretion vested by the statute is controlled and confined to situations where the public safety is endangered. It is certainly not an attempt to regulate the morality of any individual but rather it is a valid attempt to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public in general and as such it must be considered a valid delegation of authority. See Safer v. City of Jacksonville, 237 So.2d 8 (Fla.App.1970).
The next possible affront to the constitutionality of the statute is whether the statute is void for vagueness and overbreadth. This Court in Smith v. State, 237 So.2d 139 (1970), quoting from People v. Smith, 36 Cal.App.Supp.2d 748, 92 P.2d 1039 (1939), stated:
'To make a statute sufficiently certain to comply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buress v. City of Miami
... ... § 1983 (“Section ... 1983”) for false arrest (Count 1) and retaliatory ... arrest (Count 2), and two state common-law claims for ... malicious prosecution (Count 5) and false arrest (Count 6) ... (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 62-73, 88-102, ECF No. 26.) He ... that Buress endangered the safety of another person or ... property or caused a public disturbance. State v ... Holden , 299 So.2d 8, 9 (Fla. 1974). Similarly, under ... Florida law, disorderly conduct includes “acts ... of ... a nature to corrupt the ... ...
-
Basile v. Massaro, Case No: 6:10-cv-993-Orl-36DAB
...safety is endangered and that the defendant is creating a disturbance. T.L.M. v. State, 371 So. 2d 688 (Fla. DCA 1979); State v. Holden, 299 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1974). In this case, Defendant independently observed that Plaintiff was intoxicated, uncooperative, and she determined that he was not......
-
Cross v. State
...language that "would necessarily incite a breach of the peace." 3 The statute at issue in the instant case was construed in State v. Holden, 299 So.2d 8 (Fla.1974). It was held not to be vague in that it gives a sufficiently definite warning of what is proscribed. It was also held not to co......
-
Lauxman v. State, 80-55
...The record on appeal satisfies us that when arrested, appellant was intoxicated and was causing a public disturbance. State v. Holden, 299 So.2d 8 (Fla.1974); see T.L.M. v. State, 371 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Sears v. State, 319 So.2d 69 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The arrest was lawful, as wa......