STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
REO ULRICH HILL, 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.
Florida's highest court reversed a trial court's decision striking down a statute prohibiting unauthorized shrimping in the Tortugas shrimp beds. The court held that because Hill's alleged violation occurred within Florida's territorial jurisdiction, he lacks standing to challenge the statute's application to areas outside state boundaries, and the statute may be constitutionally applied to his conduct.
The statute is constitutional as applied to Hill's conduct because it occurred within Florida's territorial jurisdiction. A statute may be valid as applied to one class of cases while potentially invalid as applied to another, and a defendant has no standing to challenge the statute's application to conduct outside the state's jurisdiction when his own violation occurred within the state's boundaries.
[1] A statute may be constitutionally applied to conduct occurring within a state's jurisdiction, even if the statute purports to regulate conduct outside that jurisdiction.
[2] A party lacks standing to challenge a statute on constitutional grounds if their conduct falls within the statute's valid application.
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“Regardless of whether or not the state may prohibit shrimping in waters outside its boundaries, it clearly possesses the authority to proscribe such activities in areas subject to its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the state's core authority to regulate conduct within its territorial jurisdiction regardless of the statute's potential overreach outside those boundaries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 14, 1978, Florida Marine Patrol officers observed Reo Hill shrimping in the prohibited Tortugas shrimp nursery area at a location within t…
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 Legislative Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Chief Justice.
We have for review by direct appeal an order of the Monroe County Circuit Court declaring section 370.151(2), Florida Statutes (1977), to be unconstitutional.1 The statute, which prohibits unauthorized shrimping in certain particularly-described areas of the Tortugas shrimp beds, was held invalid by the trial court because a portion of the restricted area lies outside the territorial boundaries of the state as set forth in article II, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution. We reverse.
On February 14, 1978, officers of the Florida Marine Patrol observed Reo Hill shrimping in the prohibited Tortugas shrimp nursery area at a point within the territorial waters of the state — i. e., within three marine leagues of the Florida coast— and issued a citation charging him with a violation of section 370.151(2). After formal charges were lodged by information, Hill filed a written motion to dismiss attacking the constitutionality of the statute on the ground that the legislature, by purporting to prohibit shrimping in an area which extends in part beyond Florida’s territorial boundaries, had acted in excess of its lawful jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and held the statute invalid, finding it “immaterial that the Defendant was arrested within the boundaries of the State of Florida . . . . ”
Unlike the trial judge, we regard the uncontested fact2 that Hill’s conduct occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the state to be not only material, but dispositive of this case. Regardless of whether or not the state may prohibit shrimping in waters outside its boundaries, it clearly possesses the authority to proscribe such activities in-areas subject to its jurisdiction. It is a longstanding principle of constitutional adjudication that
[a] statutory regulation may, consistently with organic law, be applied to one class of cases in controversy, and may violate the Constitution as applied to another class of cases. This does not destroy the statute; but imposes the duty to enforce the regulation when it may be legally applied.3
Since this statute may be legally applied to Hill under the factual circumstances presented here, he has no standing to complain that it might not be constitutionally enforceable against one who commits a violation in that portion of the prohibited area lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state. See, e. g., State ex rel. Hoffman v. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 88, 98, 31 So. 2d 52, 57 (1947); Steele v. Freel, 157 Fla. 223, 226-27, 25 So. 2d 501, 503 (1946); State ex rel. Buford v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 206, 219, 93 So. 667, 671 (1922).
The trial judge erred in holding that section 370.151(2) is invalid, as the constitutional issue was not presented by a proper party in this case. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents with an opinion.
HATCHETT, J., dissents.
. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. .It was stipulated in the trial court that the incident on which these charges are based occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the state.
.In re Seven Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1, 17, 83 So. 627, 632 (1920). See also, e. g., Ex Parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222, 231-32, 192 So. 872, 875-76 (1940).
ADKINS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
It is conceded that section 370.151(2), Florida Statutes (1977), included an area outside the territorial boundaries of the State of Florida. Not only does the statute prohibit shrimping within the State of Florida, but, it also prohibits shrimping in an area outside the State of Florida. The legislature of the state has no authority to extend the territorial limits of the state so as to prohibit shrimping beyond the territorial limits. See Mounier v. State, 178 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1965).
The statutory description of the prohibited area was defective and the defect cannot be cured by showing that the offense was, in fact, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Florida. See Little v. Reo Hill Fisheries, Inc., 322 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1975).
I recognize that the state has the power to enact legislation regulating and controlling the operation of vessels and acts of citizens of this state on water outside the territorial limits of the state, as well as on waters within its territorial limits. Burns v. Rozen, 201 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). However, this does not mean that the State of Florida can regulate fishing and shrimping outside the territorial limits of the state. Following the decision of the majority opinion, all citizens in the world could shrimp in the prohibited area lying outside Florida’s territorial limits except the citizens of Florida.
To say that the statute is valid because it is applicable only to the territorial limits of Florida, is to say that you can break a leg “a little bit” or violate a law “a little bit.” The statute is either valid or invalid on its face.
It is ridiculous to say that a person convicted of a violation of the statute has no standing to attack the facial validity of the statute.
In my opinion the statute is unconstitutional.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1980)…hich appellees were charged, i. e., engaging in allegedly unlawful activity in the Charlotte County waters of Charlotte Harbor. Ap-pellees may not challenge the constitutionality of a portion of the statute which does not affect them. State v. Hill, 372 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1979); Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1976); State ex rel. Hoffman v. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 88, 31 So. 2d 52 (1947); Gill v. Wilder, 95 Fla. 901, 116 So. 870 (1928). Therefore, we do not consider the constitutionality of the statute insofar…
-
State v. Millington, 377 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1979)…n within or without the waters of this state,” apparently overlooking the fact that Millington was not charged with any such violation and therefore did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of this part of the statute. State v. Hill, 372 So. 2d 84 (Fla.1979).2 From the charging document, it appears that Millington was charged only with possession of undersized shrimp at Singleton Dock, on the Ybor Channel, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, in violation of that part of section 370.15(2)…
-
State v. Stepansky, 761 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2000)…tted within the reach of the criminal statute. See id. at 716. We specifically declined to reach the question of whether the statute also could have criminalized acts committed outside the State’s territorial waters. See id.; see also State v. Hill, 372 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla.1979) (declining to reach question of whether statute could criminalize conduct occurring outside territorial jurisdiction of State where the defendant’s actions clearly occurred within Florida waters). Thus, Mounier is not instructive in a…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Seizure of 7 Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1920)
- Ex parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222 (Fla. 1940)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers H. Buford v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1922)
- State v. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1947)
- Mounier v. State, 178 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1965)
- RAE Steele & W. S. Weaver as Clerk of the Cir. Court of Bay Cnty. v. Freel, 157 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1946)
- Thomas v. State, 157 Fla. 211 (Fla. 1946)
- Matthews v. Stanley, 157 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1946)
- Haydon Burns v. Rozen, 201 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Lt. Edward G. Little v. REO Hill Fisheries, 322 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1975)