STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. W. O. FRAZIER,
v.
D. C. COLEMAN, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 affirmed the conviction of appellant and 98 others for violating a statute prohibiting obstruction of public roads. The court held that municipal streets can constitute public roads under the statute, and that willful obstruction is a distinct crime from mere obstruction by fence.
The court held that public roads under Section 861.01 include municipal streets when appropriate for county maintenance purposes, and that the statute addresses two distinct offenses: obstruction by fence (strict liability) and willful obstruction (requiring intent), with the latter applying to the charged conduct.
“That holding rests upon the reason that the streets of a municipality, in appropriate instances, and for purposes of maintenance, may constitute public roads of the county of which the municipality is a component part.”
Establishes that municipal streets can constitute public roads under the statute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and 98 others were charged with conspiracy to willfully obstruct a public road, and with willfully obstructing a public highway by parking b…
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.
Appellant and 98 others were informed against for the violation of Sec. 861.01, F.S. ’41.
“Whoever obstructs any public road or established highway by fencing across or into the same, or by willfully causing any obstruction in or to such road or highway, or any part thereof, shall be punished . . .”
The first count charged a conspiracy to willfully obstruct a public road. The second count charged that they did willfully obstruct a public highway. It is alleged that the obstruction was effectuated by parking busses therein. The highway obstructed is Flagler Street and Northwest Miami Court, which are streets in the City of Miami.
Appellant comes here by way of an appeal from an adverse judgment rendered in habeas corpus.
The first question is whether Sec. 861.01 prohibits the obstruction of a street in a municipality. There is a wealth of authority on this question. The rule generally approved by *556the authorities is that a public road is a generic term applied to all kinds of public ways open to the public for passage. Strange v. Board of County Commissioners, 173 Ind. 640, 91 N. E. 242; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma City, 12 Okla. 82, 69 Pac. 1050; Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. Davis, 130 Ill. 146, 22 N. E. 850. We need not go beyond our own jurisdiction for an expression which we feel is applicable here. Amos, et al., v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1, 126 So. 308;
“ . . . That holding rests upon the reason that the streets of a municipality, in appropriate instances, and for purposes of maintenance, may constitute public roads of the county of which the municipality is a component part. All streets are highways, but all highways are not necessarily streets.”
The second question is whether Sec. 861.01 is limited in its application to obstructions of a permanent character. A thoughtful reading of the statute will leave no doubt as to the answer. The statute is in the disjunctive. It is one crime to obstruct a highway by a fence. It is another to willfully obstruct same. This charge is filed under the latter. It is significant that in the latter it is essential that the obstruction be willful but not so in the former. This is a complete answer to the claim that the mere parking of a car on the street is a violation of the statute inasmuch as it necessarily partially obstructs the street.
Finding no error the judgment is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berlin v. Jacobs, 156 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1945)
Authorities Cited
- Amos v. Knott, 99 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1930)