GLENN SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Overbreadth Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling on various grounds, including the constitutionality of Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-22.012, § 2-4, presently R. 33-601.314, § 2-4, which is the rule against fighting in prisons. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the rule is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Ordinary people can understand what is meant by the prohibition against fighting. See D.L.B. v. State, 707 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that statute prohibiting “affray” was not impermissibly vague; ordinary people can understand that “affray”, which is fighting in a public place to the terror of people, is prohibited), aff’d, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1998). The rule is not overbroad because there are no First Amendment issues. State v. Hoyt, 609 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“Legislation is not susceptible to an overbreadth challenge unless it applies to conduct protected by the First Amendment.”).
The other arguments raised by Appellant are rejected because they lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Neil A. Fisher, M.D., 965 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…cert. denied); 3. Smith v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla.2001) (habeas corpus denied); 4. Smith v. Moore, Sec’t of Coir., 799 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (the trial court decision against plaintiff was affirmed); 5. Smith v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 799 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (the trial court decision against plaintiff was affirmed); 6. Smith v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 833 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (the trial court decision against plaintiff was affirmed); 7. Smith v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 842 So.…
-
Smith v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 875 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…judgment challenging the constitutionality of the term “disorderly conduct” contained in Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.314, § 9-17. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because [*684] the term is not vague or overbroad. See Smith v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 799 So. 2d 319, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that the prohibition against fighting in Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.314, § 2-4 was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad); D.L.B. v. State, 707 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that statute prohibitin…
Authorities Cited
- D.L.B. v. State, 707 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Hoyt, 609 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- D.L.B. v. State, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1998)