Tingley v. Allen
| Decision Date | 28 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1235,80-1235 |
| Citation | 397 So.2d 1166 |
| Parties | Captain Ralph C. TINGLEY, District Nine Supervisor of the Florida Marine Patrol, and State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, Appellants, v. David Lloyd ALLEN, Iris Morris Breece, John Delong, Reo U. Hill, David Earl Pigott, David Revell, and James Wideman, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Kent A. Zaiser and Susan Gamble, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
David Paul Horan and Mark H. Kelly, Key West, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ.
This appeal is taken from a declaratory judgment holding section 370.151(2), Florida Statutes (1979), 1 unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction. 2
Appellees, Florida residents engaged in the business of commercial shrimping for profit, filed a petition for declaratory judgment 3 in circuit court, citing past arrests and fear of future prosecution under the statute, Duran v. Wells, 307 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as grounds for standing to bring suit. Their petition sought to have the statute declared unconstitutional and to have appellants, Captain Tingley of the Florida Marine Patrol and the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, temporarily and permanently enjoined from enforcing the statute.
On May 15, 1980, the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit rendered a final judgment declaring section 370.151(2), which prohibits unauthorized shrimping in certain described areas of the Tortugas shrimp beds, invalid and enjoining the appellants from enforcing the statute.
Paragraph (a) of section 370.151(2) provides a metes and bounds description of the location of the shrimp beds, and paragraph (b) prohibits all shrimping except live bait production in the area described. Although situated within the state's territorial boundaries (as established in Florida's 1868 Constitution) at the time of the statute's enactment, the shrimp beds, which extend as far as thirty miles into the Gulf at some points, are now partially within and without the state's boundaries. Appellees protest that the statute is an unconstitutional attempt by the State of Florida to regulate the natural resources which are located within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 4
The principal issue thus submitted is whether the statute conflicts with federal legislation on the same topic and should therefore be declared constitutionally invalid under the supremacy clause, U.S.Const. art. VI, cl.2. We hold that section 370.151(2) is preempted by federal law and that the portion of the statute which attempts to extend Florida's authority to regulate fishing extraterritorially is unconstitutional.
The court below correctly ruled that the statute conflicts with federal legislation on the same subject. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., recognized and confirmed title and ownership to all land and natural resources lying beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the states to the states; reserving the right to natural resources outside the states' boundaries to the United States. The Supreme Court later interpreted the applicability of this act to Florida and firmly established the state's territorial boundary at three marine leagues 5 into the Gulf of Mexico in United States v. Florida, 425 U.S. 791, 96 S.Ct. 1840, 48 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976). More recent legislation, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., grants exclusive federal control over all fish within the fishery conservation zone. This zone is described as the area seaward for 200 miles from the territorial limits of each state. The act also specifically prohibits both direct and indirect state regulation beyond state territorial waters, 16 U.S.C. § 1856(a).
Federal laws are the supreme law of the land, and to the extent that state laws or policies are in conflict, federal law governs. United States v. Castellana, 433 F.Supp. 1309, 1316 (M.D.Fla.1977). Congress has clearly preempted regulation of all fishing in the area between the states' boundaries and 200 miles seaward. The statute at issue is in conflict insofar as it attempts to govern shrimping in the area beyond three leagues from Florida's coastline.
Our finding that the statute conflicts with federal legislation effectively disposes of appellant's contention that Skiriotes v. State of Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 61 S.Ct. 924, 85 L.Ed. 1193 (1941) authorizes Florida to regulate the operations of all fishermen and vessels of this state engaged in fishing both within and without the boundaries of state waters. Skiriotes, held that Florida may govern the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas with respect to matters in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, MCA 81-270.
...existing state regulation. Yet its law contemplates continued state regulation rather than completely forbidding it. Tingley v. Allen, 397 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1981), holds federal law has preempted state regulation of fishing in the fishery conservation zone. Its decision is based up......
-
Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources
...Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment). The court cited the Florida Third District Court of Appeal's decisions in Tingley v. Allen, 397 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and Livings v. Davis, 422 So.2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), as being consistent with its decision. Finally, the court held tha......
-
State, Dept. of Natural Resources v. Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc.
...Zone by enacting the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C., Sections 1801, et seq. 2 In Tingley v. Allen, 397 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), the Third District interpreted 16 U.S.C., Section 1856(a) as specifically prohibiting both direct and indirect regulation of fis......
-
Livings v. Davis
...trial court found section 370.15(2)(a) unconstitutional. The district court affirmed per curiam on the authority of Tingley v. Allen, 397 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and certified conflict with Department of Natural Resources v. Southeastern Fisheries Association, 415 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 1s......
-
Extraterritorial application of state fishery management regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: have the courts missed the boat?
...at 1354; Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1985); State v. Raffield, 515 So.2d 283 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1987); and Tingley v. Allen, 397 So.2d 1166 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. (42.) Skiriotes, 313 U.S. at 77; see also United States v. Alaska, 422 U.S. 184, 198-99 (1975). (43.) Skiriotes, 313 U.S. ......