THE CITY OF MIAMI
v.
JESSE SLONE
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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld Miami's ordinance requiring non-resident motor vehicle operators to obtain a driver's license and submit vehicles for inspection, reversing the Circuit Court's decision that the city lacked jurisdiction over non-residents. The Court held that municipalities may impose such requirements in the interest of public safety when no undue burden is placed on interstate commerce.
A municipality has jurisdiction to require non-resident motor vehicle operators who regularly use its streets to obtain a driver's license and submit vehicles for inspection, provided the ordinance permits non-residents reasonable time to comply (such as the 30-day period here) and the requirements do not unduly burden interstate commerce.
“The provision of the ordinance requiring owners of motor vehicles to submit them to the City for inspection was a reasonable requirement in the interest of public safety.”
Establishes that vehicle inspection requirements are within municipal authority when justified by public safety concerns.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJesse Slone, a non-resident of Miami who frequently used the city's streets, was arrested for operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license and…
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 Municipal Ordinance Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
The respondent was arrested and taken in custody by the City of Miami for operating a motor vehicle without securing a driver’s license and for refusing to submit said motor vehicle to the City for inspection as required by Ordinance No. 1352. tie was tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $15 or in default thereof, to serve eight days in the City jail. This judgment was, on appeal, reversed by the Circuit Court and is brought here for review by certiorari.
The Circuit Court predicated his judgment of reversal on the fact that respondent was a non-resident of the City *92of Miami ancl, being so, the City had no jurisdiction to require him to secure a driver’s license or to submit his motor vehicle to Hie City for inspection.
This would doubtless be true by the terms of the ordinance as to a casual passer through the City but it does not hold good as to respondent who lives in the5 vicinity of the City and uses its streets frequently by traversing them with his motor vehicle. The ordinance allows non-resident owners 30 days within which to comply with its terms.
The provision of the ordinance requiring- owners of motor vehicles to submit them to the City for inspection was a reasonable requirement in' the interest of public safety. Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Volume I, Section 567; State ex rel. Stephenson v. Dillon, 82 Fla. 276, 89 So. 558.
Likewise the State or a municipality duly authorized may in the interest of public safety and the general welfare, when no undue burden is imposed on interstate commerce require non-resident users of motor vehicles to secure a driver’s license. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 35 Sup Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 385; Kane v. State New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 37 Sup. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222; State v. Perry, 138 S. C. 329, 136 S. E. 314; Harper v. England, 124 Fla. 296, 168 So. 403; State v. Denison, 189 N. C. 173, 126 S. E. 571; Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Volume I, Sec. 572.
The Circuit Court was therefore in error so his judgment is quashed.
It is so ordered.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
• Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, .and Rule 21-A of the Rules, pi this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hendrick v. State of Md., 235 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1915)
- Kane v. State of N.J., 242 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1916)
- Harper v. England, 124 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Dillon, 82 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1921)