PETER S. HOTOPH AND NORMAN BRUCE MEYER, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction of two fishermen for net fishing near Matanzas Inlet, holding that the statute prohibiting such fishing within one mile of inlets in St. Johns County was unconstitutionally vague for failing to specify the eastern boundary of the protected fishing area.
The statute is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specifically identify the eastern boundary of the protected area, making it impossible for the average person to readily identify the prohibited fishing zone.
[1] A law is unconstitutionally vague when it fails to specifically identify prohibited areas, making it impossible for the average person to readily ascertain the boundaries…
[2] A statute prohibiting fishing within a certain distance of an inlet is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to delineate an eastern boundary for the prohibited area.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fishermen cannot be required to guess at the location of protected fishing areas.”
Establishes the core principle that vague laws fail to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Hotoph and Meyer were charged with net fishing in violation of a special Florida law regulating fishing in St. Johns County. Count one char…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unconstitutionally Vague Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a county court judgment expressly upholding the constitutionality of a special law prohibiting net or seine fishing in certain parts of St. Johns County. We have jurisdiction.1
We reverse and hold the law unconstitutionally vague for failure to specifically identify the prohibited fishing areas.
The relevant facts in the record reflect that appellants were charged by count one of the information with fishing or causing to be fished a net or seine within one mile of Matanzas Inlet in violation of section 4 of chapter 31233, Laws of Florida (1955). By count two of the information, appellants were charged with fishing or causing to be fished a net or seine more than 1100 feet in length within one-fourth mile of the shoreline within St. Johns County in violation of section 5 of chapter 31233, Laws of Florida (1955). A jury convicted the appellants of the first count of the information but acquitted them of the second. The defendants were each sentenced to serve thirty days in the St. Johns County jail and to pay a fine of $350. Prior to trial, the appellants had filed a motion to dismiss the information because section 4 of the act was unconstitutionally vague. The trial judge expressly denied this motion.
Section 4 of chapter 31233, Laws of Florida (1955), provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to fish, or cause to be fished, any type of net or seine except common cast net within one mile measuring north or south of any inlet within the boundaries of St. Johns County.
A plain reading of this section requires us to agree with appellants’ challenge to this law. In our view, the average person simply cannot readily identify the boundaries of the protected area. Unlike other sections of chapter 31233, section 4 fails to delineate an eastern boundary. For example, section 5 proscribes certain activities “within one-quarter (Vi) mile of the shore line of St. Johns County.” Section 7 prohibits other activity “within one-half mile of the eastern shore line of St. Johns County.” The definitional problem is further compounded by section 1 of the act, which describes the terms “inside salt waters” and “outside salt waters.” Section 4 makes no reference to either of these definitions. Fishermen cannot be required to guess at the location of protected fishing areas. We therefore hold section 4 of chapter 31233 to be unconstitutionally vague. The other sections of the act were not in issue in these proceedings and are not affected by this decision.
The convictions of appellants are reversed, and their sentences are vacated.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, SUND-BERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.
. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.