STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. VERLE GAYLORD LEHMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
T. A. BUCHANAN, AS PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 drunk driving defendant challenged the validity of a Metropolitan Dade County traffic ordinance under which he was arrested, arguing the ordinance's title was insufficient and its minimum penalty exceeded the state law minimum. The Florida appellate court upheld the ordinance as valid under the Metro Charter and held that local penalties need not be identical to state penalties.
The court held that the ordinance was valid under the Metro Charter requirements for title and notice, and that local ordinances may impose penalties higher than state law minimums without creating an unconstitutional conflict with state law under the home rule amendment.
“The ordinance is valid under the requirements of title and notice, as set out in § 1.02(b) of the Metro Charter.”
Establishes the standard for validity of local ordinances regarding title and notice requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLehman was arrested and charged with drunk driving in Miami under a Metropolitan Dade County traffic ordinance that had superseded the city's traffic …
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 Ordinance Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was arrested and charged with drunk driving in the City of Miami, under a traffic ordinance of Metropolitan Dade County which had superseded the city’s traffic ordinance for such offense.1 He sought release on a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. On hearing, the writ was discharged and the petitioner was remanded to the custody of the respondent sheriff.
Petitioner appealed, contending the ordinance is invalid for insufficiency in its title and because the minimum penalty provided therein is more than the minimum penalty provided in the state law governing such an offense. We hold appellant’s contentions are without merit and affirm. The ordinance is valid under the requirements of title and notice, as set out in § 1.02(b) of the Metro Charter.2 See 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 415; 37 Am.Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 146. The penalties prescribed in the ordinance were within the authority therefor as granted in § 6.15(B) of the Metro Charter. The fact that the penalty prescribed in the ordinance fixed a minimtim higher than the minimum specified in the State law relating to such an offense did not bring the ordinance in conflict with applicable state law within the meaning of the prohibition against such conflicts as contained in subsection (5) of section 11 of Article VIII of the Constitution, F.S.A., the home rule amendment. The conflict provision did not require that the state and Metro penalties be identical.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. & the Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Metro. Dade Cnty. v. City OF Miami, 396 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1980)…, 343 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist Church v. Dade County, 334 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); City of North Miami Beach v. Metropolitan Dade County, 317 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); State ex rel. Lehman v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Carol City Utils., Inc. v. Dade County, 183 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); City of Miami v. Benitez, 116 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). See also In re Advisory Opinion of the Governor, 313 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1975) (recognizing that…
Authorities Cited
- Miami Shores Vill. v. Faris N. Cowart, 108 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)