State v. J. H. B., AE-309
| Decision Date | 18 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AE-309,AE-309 |
| Citation | 415 So.2d 814 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. J.H.B., a child, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
State appeals the trial court's order dismissing delinquency petition. Appellant was charged in the petition with unlawfully possessing dogs (pit bulls) customarily used for taking wildlife in the Cypress Creek Wildlife Management Area during the closed hunting season in violation of Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Rule 39-15.04(6)(a).
At issue is whether this rule is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. We conclude it is not and reverse.
Rule 39-15.04(6)(a) provides:
No person shall possess or knowingly or negligently allow any dog customarily used for taking wildlife on any part of a management area except as authorized by regulations for the particular area or under permit issued by a representative of the Commission.
Appellant moved to dismiss the petition contending the regulation violates due process. He argued the regulation is arbitrary and capricious because it does not require that the offender possess the dogs knowingly or with unlawful intent and that, consequently, the regulation punishes otherwise innocent conduct.
The trial court dismissed the petition finding Rule 39-15.04(6)(a) void for vagueness since it neither defined the type of dog prohibited from the area nor the kind of wildlife intended to be protected.
Under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution and Florida Constitution, a penal statute must be expressed in language that is definite enough to provide notice of what conduct would constitute a violation. State v. Ashcraft, 378 So.2d 284 (Fla.1979).
The judicial test of statutory vagueness is whether the language is specific enough to give persons of common intelligence and understanding adequate warning of the proscribed conduct. Sanicola v. State, 384 So.2d 152 (Fla.1980).
It is our obligation to find allegedly unconstitutionally vague statutes constitutional if application of ordinary logic and common understanding would so permit. State v. Little, 400 So.2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Fundamental principles of statutory construction dictate that an enactment should be interpreted to render it constitutional if possible. State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86 (Fla.1979).
With the above constitutional maxims in mind, we find that a plain reading of the rule in question reveals that it sufficiently meets the test of constitutional validity to put a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peters
...animal falls within this classification is an issue of fact to be determined by the evidence presented."); State v. J.H.B., 415 So.2d 814, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) ("The issue of what type of dog is customarily used for taking wildlife presents an evidentiary question rather than a constitut......
-
American Dog Owners Ass'n v. Dade County, Fla., 89-771-CIV.
...v. State, 462 So.2d 771, 773 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) 19. Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104, 106 (1984) 20. State v. J.H.B., 415 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) 21. Carter v. Stuart, 433 So.2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) 22. Burgan v. State, 258 Ga. 512, 371 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1988) 23. State......
-
Brown v. State, s. 81189
...vague. "If a statute or rule uses a word without defining it, then its common or ordinary meaning applies." State v. J.H.B., 415 So.2d 814, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The term "public housing," in common parlance, is understood to encompass affordable, government subsidized housing for indivi......
-
State v. Smoke Signals Pipe & Tobacco Shop, LLC
...statute is comprehensible, and "presents an evidentiary question rather than a constitutional validity question." State v. J.H.B., 415 So.2d 814, 815 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). In addition, RSA 318–B:1, X-a(a)-(k) contains a nonexhaustive list of items that may be considered drug paraphernalia......