FRED D. MCFARLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, 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.
Fred McFarlin appeals an administrative order revoking his horse trainer license, imposing a $400 fine, and denying him ground privileges for two years after his horse tested positive for a prohibited substance. The court affirms the license revocation but vacates the fine and ground privilege denial as exceeding the agency's statutory authority.
The court affirmed the license revocation as a valid exercise of agency authority, but vacated the $400 fine and the denial of ground privileges because the Division lacked specific statutory authorization to impose such penalties under Florida law and the state constitution.
[1] Administrative regulations authorizing the imposition of fines must be supported by specific legislative authority.
[2] An administrative agency cannot impose a penalty not provided for by law.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“No administrative agency shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law.”
Constitutional requirement that administrative agencies lack authority to impose penalties without specific legislative authorization
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcFarlin's horse, Cypress Storm, tested positive for butorphanol in urine samples from two races at Pompano Race Track on November 28 and December 7, …
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.
NESBITT, Judge.
McFarlin appeals the order of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering which: revoked his license as a horse trainer; fined him an aggregate of $400 for separate violations of the Division’s rules; and declared him ineligible for ground privileges for two years.
Urine samples demonstrated that “Cypress Storm” (a horse trained by McFarlin) ran in two races at Pompano Race Track, one on November 28 and the other on December 7, 1979, under the influence of bu-torphanol.
McFarlin was charged with having violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 7E-4.25(12)(a) [running a horse under a prohibited substance]; Rule 7E-4.05 [the absolute insurer’s rule]; as well as Rule 7E-4.25(13) [the drug-medication rule]. He contends that the cited regulations constitute an unwarranted delegation of legislative authority under Sections 550.02 and 550.24, Florida Statutes (1979). We recently decided such a contention adversely to other horse trainers. Solimena v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we affirm the administrative action with respect to McFarlin’s revocation. Accord, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation v. Caple, 362 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1978).
There is no merit to McFarlin’s contention that the stewards’ action is required to precede that of the Division. Solimena v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, supra; Cal-fin v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 391 So. 2d 739 (Fla.4th DCA 1980).
There are serious errors with respect to the remainder of the order imposing the fine and denying McFarlin ground privileges for two years.
McFarlin was fined an aggregate of $400 for two separate violations, ostensibly pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 7E-4.09(3), which purports to authorize the levy of a fine of $200 for each separate violation. The authority for adopting the rule appears to be Section 550.02, Florida Statutes (1979). However, a simple reading of the statute fails to disclose the specific authority for the Division to levy such a fine. Moreover, the argument of the Division expressly ignores Article I, Section 18 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution which provides:
No administrative agency shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law.
It is apparent that insofar as Rule 7E — 4.-09(3) sought to levy a fine, it was beyond the purview of the agency to adopt or enforce it without specific legislative authority.1 Consequently, that portion of the order which sought to impose a $400 fine against McFarlin is vacated.
We agree with McFarlin’s contention that the agency was without authority to expel him from the grounds and consequently, that portion of the order is also vacated. Calfin v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, supra.
As modified, the administrative order of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering revoking McFarlin’s license as a horse trainer is affirmed.
. We observe by the adoption of Chapter 80-270, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 1980, codified as Section 550.241(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), the Legislature has evidently clothed the Division with authority, when properly exercised, which might support the levy of a fine.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyman v. State, 431 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…stitution which states: No administrative agency shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law.3 See McFarlin v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 405 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (striking fine imposed pursuant to rule as contrary to Article I, Section 18). We do not agree. Under the rule, the owner, however innocent,4 of a drugged horse is required to return any purse to the track for repayment to the ow…
-
Hays v. State, 418 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…requires a forfeiture without any general legislative authority as required by Article I, Section 18 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution. See McFarlin v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 405 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
-
Cont'l Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 464 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…le I, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution prohibits administrative agencies from imposing any form of penalty “without specific legislative authority.” (e.s.) McFarlin v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 405 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Finding no specific or express legislative authority for the Board to impose an assessment under the “penalty” provisions of rule 16Q-21.11(1)(1)2, or that portion of subsection 3, as above stated, we conclude that the above…
Authorities Cited
- Solimena v. State, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Division OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Caple, 362 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1978)
- Calfin v. State, 391 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)