LT. EDWARD G. LITTLE, DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF DISTRICT 9 OF FLORIDA MARINE PATROL, APPELLANT,
v.
REO HILL FISHERIES, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court's declaration that Section 370.151, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable because it used defective legal descriptions ('north longitude' instead of 'west longitude') to define a prohibited shrimping area, making it impossible for the public to know what conduct was prohibited.
The statute was unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable because the legislature failed to adequately describe the prohibited area, making it impossible for the public to understand what conduct was prohibited. The Department of Natural Resources lacked authority to correct the legislative defect through administrative regulation, and the confiscation of the equipment was without legal authority and void.
[1] A statute is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite if it fails to adequately describe the prohibited area for a violation.
[2] An administrative agency lacks legislative authority to define a prohibited area when the legislature has failed to adequately describe it.
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“The legislature provided a penalty but it did not define the area in which such alleged violation could occur.”
Establishes the core vagueness defect—the statute imposed penalties without clearly defining the prohibited area
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceREO Hill Fisheries owned the shrimp boat 'Captain Mike Hill.' On March 5, 1973, the Florida Marine Patrol arrested the appellee for shrimping in an al…
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 Legislative Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a circuit court decision declaring unconstitutional Section 370.151, Florida Statutes, as it existed on March 5, 1973.1
The statute prohibited shrimping in a certain alleged area. The legal description defining the prohibited area was defective by the use of “north longitude” instead of “west longitude.” The Department of Natural Resources recognized the mistake and corrected the description in its regulation 16B-2.13.
The appellee, who is the owner of the shrimp boat “Captain Mike Hill,” was arrested on March S, 1973, by the Florida Marine Patrol and charged with shrimping in a prohibited area in violation of said regulation 16B-2.13. The appellee’s shrimp nets and doors were confiscated from the vessel by reason of the charged offense.
In an action for declaratory judgment brought by appellee, the trial judge declared that Section 370.151(2), Florida Statutes, was so vague and indefinite as to be unenforceable and enjoined the Department of Natural Resources from enforcing said statute. The trial judge, in his findings, stated:
“. . . The legislature provided a penalty but it did not define the area in which such alleged violation could occur. This is further shown by the fact that the testimony before the Court conclusively shows, without dispute, that the three buoys, A. B. and C., referred to in both the statute, Section 370.151(2) and the administrative rule 16(b) — 2.13 are not and were not at the time of the arrests in position so as to assist anyone in determining if they were near or in the prohibited area.
* * * * *
“. . . [T]he Department of Natural Resources has no legislative authority to define an area prohibiting the taking of shrimp. That was a legislative function and since the legislature had mistakenly failed to adequately describe the prohibited area, it follows that the Department of Natural Resources had no such authority. ...”
The trial judge further held that the confiscation and holding of nets and shrimp doors belonging to the appellee were without legislative authority and null and void.
We affirm the holding of the trial judge.
The trial judge properly brought the statutory defect to the attention of the legislature, which corrected the defective description in Section 370.151(2) by Chapter 74-1, Laws of Florida 1974. Our affirmance of the trial judge’s decision in this cause has no effect on this new statute.
Affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS and DREW (Retired), JJ., and ANDERSON and SIE-GENDORF, Circuit Judges, concur. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b) (1), Fla.Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Reo Ulrich Hill, 372 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1979)…14 (Fla.1965). The statutory description of the prohibited area was defective and the defect cannot be cured by showing that the offense was, in fact, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Florida. See Little v. Reo Hill Fisheries, Inc., 322 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1975). I recognize that the state has the power to enact legislation regulating and controlling the operation of vessels and acts of citizens of this state on water outside the territorial limits of the state, as well as on waters within its t…