CHARLES FEDERMAN, 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.
A licensed horse trainer challenges the validity of pari-mutuel racing rules and the legality of a warrantless search of his automobile at a racetrack. The court affirms both the rules and the search, finding they are constitutionally valid under principles established in comparable Pennsylvania horse racing cases.
The court affirmed the validity of the rules and the warrantless search. The search was constitutional under Rule 7E-4.02(23) because licensees impliedly consent to such searches by accepting their licenses. The factual findings against Federman are supported by substantial, competent evidence.
[1] A rule promulgated by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering authorizing warrantless searches of vehicles at a racetrack is valid.
[2] A warrantless search of a licensed horse trainer's automobile parked at a racetrack, conducted pursuant to a valid administrative rule, is constitutional.
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“Each of such licensees, in accepting a license, does thereby consent to such search as aforesaid and waive and release all claims or possible actions for damages that he may have by virtue of any action taken under this rule.”
Establishes the implied consent theory underlying the validity of warrantless searches at racetracks—licensees consent by accepting their licenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Federman, a licensed horse trainer, was subjected to a warrantless search of his automobile while parked at Pompano Park racetrack pursuant to…
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 Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The appellant Federman is a licensed horse trainer. He appeals from two orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings upholding the validity of rules promulgated by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering and two orders of the Division itself imposing discipline upon him for violation of those rules. We affirm.
For the most part, the legal issues Feder-man raises have already been directly and recently decided against him. Solimena v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1982); Calfin v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 391 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see also, Simmons v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, 407 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff’d, 412 So. 2d 357 (Fla.1982).
In addition, however, he challenges the constitutional validity of a war-rantless search of his automobile while it was parked at the Pompano Park racetrack. The search, which was effected without his express consent,1 and which revealed various hypodermic needles and other contraband, was conducted pursuant to Rule 7E— 4.02(23), Florida Administrative Code.2 We uphold the validity both of the rule and the search on the authority of the uncannily similar case of Lanchester v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 16 Pa. Cmwlth. 85, 325 A. 2d 648 (1974). Accord, Euster v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 431 F.Supp. 828 (E.D.Pa.1977) (following Lanchester). The opinion in Lanchester is so exhaustive and well-reasoned that it would serve no useful purpose to do more than to express our approval.
Finally, there is no merit to the position that any of the factual findings against the appellant are not supported by substantial, competent evidence. Section 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1979).
Affirmed.
. See Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981), and cases cited.
. The rule provides:
(23) The Florida State Racing Commission or the Steward representing the Florida State Racing Commission, investigating violations of law or the Rules of the Board, shall have the power to permit persons authorized by either of them to search the person, or enter and search the stables, rooms, vehicles and automobiles or other places within the track enclosure at which a race meeting is held, or other tracks or places where the horses eligible to race at said race meeting are kept, of all persons licensed by the Florida State Racing Commission and of all employees and agents of any race track association licensed by said Florida State Racing Commission; and of all vendors who are permitted by said race track association to sell and distribute their wares and merchandise within the race track enclosure, in order to inspect and examine the personal effects or property on such persons or kept in such automobiles, stables, rooms, vehicles, or other places as aforesaid. Each of such licensees, in accepting a license, does thereby consent to such search as aforesaid and waive and release all claims or possible actions for damages that he may have by virtue of any action taken under this rule. Each employee of a licensed race track association in accepting his employment, and each vendor who is permitted to sell and distribute his merchandise within the race track enclosure, does thereby consent to such search as aforesaid and waive and release claims or possible actions for damages as they may have by virtue of any action taken under this rule.
Under Solimena, supra, it is clear that the Division had authority to promulgate this rule.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 416 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…4), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 875, 95 S.Ct. 137, 42 L.Ed.2d 114 (1974); see, United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972); Federman v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 414 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). There is likewise no basis for the assertion that the findings against the appellant are unsupported by substantial, competent evidence, DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957); Section 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1979), nor t…
-
Bludworth v. Arcuri, 416 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…v. Pace, 111 Misc.2d 488, 444 N.Y. S.2d 529 (Sup.Ct.1981). Ninth Circuit Lewis v. McMasters, 663 F. 2d 954 (9th Cir.1981). Finally, although not directly on point, see Federman v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 414 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), which upheld the constitutionality of Rule 7E--L02(23), Florida Administrative Code. The rule provides: [*886] The Florida State Racing Commission or the Steward representing the Florida State Racing Commission, investigating vio…
-
Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 724 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…d on a reasonableness standard. Finally, appellant points out that Florida Administrative Code Rule 7E-4.02(23), the predecessor to rule 61D-2.002, was upheld in Federman v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 414 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We agree entirely with the ALJ that the review standards for assessing the validity of proposed rules have been drastically altered [*102] by the 1996 amendments to Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act. As we explained in St.…
Authorities Cited
- Solimena v. State, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Calfin v. State, 391 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Simmons v. The Div. OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 407 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- THE Fla. BAR. In re Jack F. White, Jr., 412 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1982)
- Simmons v. The Div. OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 412 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1982)