STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR L. SUMMERS, 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's declaration that section 316.193(6)(d) was unconstitutional because the defendant lacked standing to challenge provisions protecting innocent owners and lienholders when he was the vehicle's owner.
A party to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied lacks standing to challenge that statute on grounds it may be applied unconstitutionally to others not before the court.
[1] A defendant charged under a statute may not challenge the statute's constitutionality as applied to innocent third parties when the statute is constitutional as applied t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A party to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground it may be applied unconstitutionally to others not before the court.”
Court explaining the standing doctrine and why Summers could not raise constitutional challenges on behalf of innocent owners and lienholders.
Arthur Summers was arrested for driving under the influence while driving a vehicle he owned, and the vehicle was subject to impoundment under section…
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 Impoundment Of Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The state appeals an order of the Collier County Court that declares section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) and section 26.012(1), Florida Statutes (1993). Because the appellee did not have standing to challenge that portion of the statute upon which his constitutional argument was based, we reverse.
The appellee’s challenge to the statute was based strictly on the due process rights of innocent owners or lienholders in challenging the impoundment of a vehicle under section 316.193(6)(d). The appellee, however, was not an innocent owner or lien-holder; he owned the vehicle he was chiving at the time of his arrest for driving under the influence. A party to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground it may be applied unconstitutionally to others not before the court. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2914-15, 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 839 (1973); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1979) (one may not challenge portions of enactment which do not adversely affect his personal or property rights). Thus, the appellee was without standing to challenge the portion of the statute that applies to innocent owners or lienholders. We therefore reverse the order declaring section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), unconstitutional.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shapiro v. State, 696 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ee Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613-15, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916-18, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 766-75, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3359-63, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1979); State v. Summers, 651 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), approved, 654 So. 2d 127 (Fla.1995).…
-
State v. Wichmann, 726 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…of Annco. A “person to whom a statute can be constitutionally applied may not challenge the statute on the grounds that it may result in an impermissible application to someone else.” State v. Ginn, 660 So. 2d 1118, 1120. See also State v. Summers, 651 So. 2d 191, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“One may not challenge portions of enactment which do not adversely affect his personal or property rights”). Since appellee was not the owner of the impounded vehicle, he could not challenge its impoundment. Having conclude…
-
State v. Owens, 658 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Reversed. See State v. Summers, 651 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1973)
- Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1979)