Wolfson v. State, 76--696
| Decision Date | 06 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--696,76--696 |
| Citation | 344 So.2d 611 |
| Parties | Herbert WOLFSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rick B. Levinson and Arnold Levine, Levine, Freedman & Hirsch, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner.
Glen Darty, State Atty., and James G. Horrell, Asst. State Atty., Bartow, for respondent.
Herbert Wolfson seeks certiorari to review an order of the Circuit Court for Polk County, acting in its appellate capacity, which reversed an order of the county court dismissing an indictment charging petitioner with a criminal violation of the Government in the Sunshine Law. 1 We deny the petition.
The statute 2 under which Wolfson was charged provides as follows:
'Public meetings and records; public inspection; penalties.--
(1) All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation or any political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting.
(3) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation or any political subdivision who violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.'
The indictment alleged that Wolfson
'while serving as an elected City Commissioner of the City Commission of Lake Wales, Florida, a municipal corporation, did meet with other City Commissioners and/or City Officials and/or Staff of the City Commission of the City of Lake Wales, Florida, and where he did so meet said meeting was not open to the public at all times and at said meeting matters pertaining to City Commission business, to-wit: Employment of the City Attorney, was (sic) discussed in willful and knowing violation of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes.'
Wolfson contends that the indictment is insufficient on its face in that it failed to allege all of the necessary elements of the crime charged as set out in the statute. We disagree.
At the outset, we recognize that the prior decisions of the appellate courts of this state have construed the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law in the context of civil proceedings, i.e., in either injunction suits brought to put a halt to secret meetings of a governmental agency or in suits brought to invalidate governmental actions or resolutions taken at a nonpublic meeting. The instant case obviously presents the statute for judicial construction in the context of a criminal prosecution.
Wolfson, of course, contends that criminal statutes must be strictly construed, citing State v. Buchanan; 3 and with this general principle of law we have no quarrel. Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of law entitle an accused to no less. 4 On the other hand, it has been said that: 5
'The construction of a penal statute should not be unduly technical, arbitrary, severe, artificial or narrow . . . The words used need not be given their narrowest meaning, in complete disregard of the purpose or intent of the legislature . . . In short, although criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the courts are not authorized so to interpret them as to emasculate the statutes.'
Moreover, on the point, our supreme court declared in construing this very statute: 6
Similarly, in other states Sunshine Laws or public meeting laws not unlike ours have also been liberally construed for the benefit of the public. 7
Keeping these principles in mind, therefore, we turn now to the specific challenges made by Wolfson to the indictment herein. He argues first that, although the indictment does charge that 'while serving as an elected City Commissioner of the City Commission of Lake Wales' he did meet with other city commissioners at a meeting not open to the public at all times, the indictment does not allege that he attended said nonpublic meeting As a member of the City Commission of the City of Lake Wales. This contention is sophistically semantic in nature and without merit. Reading the indictment in its entirety and giving its terms a fair and reasonable construction, Wolfson clearly is alleged to have secretly met, as a member of the City Commission, with other members of the Commission.
He next contends that the indictment is fatally defective in that it fails to state with sufficient specificity that the secret 'meeting' he allegedly attended was a meeting at which 'official acts' were to be taken. We disagree again.
Numerous prior cases, beginning with this court's decision in Times Publishing Co. v. Williams, 8 have held that the intent of the Government in the Sunshine Law is to cover any gathering of some or all of the members of a public board at which such members discuss any matters on which Foreseeable action may be taken by the board; and it is the entire Decision-making process that the legislature intended to affect by the enactment of the statute. 9 The supreme court has adopted and applied this rule in numerous cases. 10...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren
...enacted for the public benefit, the Florida court said, must be interpreted favorably to the public. See also Wolfson v. State, 344 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); Laman v. McCord, 245 Ark. 401, 432 S.W.2d 753 Finally, a recent amendment to the KOMA is further evidence the act should......
-
Ncaa. v. Associated Press
...law liberally in favor of the state's policy of open government. See Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326 (Fla.2007); Wolfson v. State, 344 So.2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Tribune Co. v. In re Public Records, 493 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); City of Riviera Beach v. Barfield, 642 So.2d 113......
-
Knight v. Iowa Dist. Court of Story County
...We have found only two reported cases involving criminal prosecutions for an open meetings law violation. In Wolfson v. State, 344 So.2d 611 (Fla.App.1977), the court held an indictment charging a violation of § 286.011, Fla.Stat. (1975), should not have been dismissed. Section 286.011 is m......
-
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club, Inc.
...even though it may contain some penal provisions. See City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So.2d 38 (Fla.1971); Doran; Wolfson v. State, 344 So.2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Although the article on discrimination in housing of the Metropolitan Dade County Code does contain some provisions penal i......
-
Modern sunshine: attending public meetings in the digital age.
...Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1973); City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); and Wolfson v. State, 344 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1977). See also 93-79 Op. Att'y Gen. (1993) (discussion among two members a Sunshine (9) See State v. Childers, 886 So. 2d......