Goffin v. State

560 So. 2d 421, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3114, 1990 WL 58575
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 9, 1990·No. No. 89-1211·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. On appeal appellant challenges section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1987), as being facially unconstitutional. No challenge to its constitutionality was raised below. We reject this challenge. Dreske v. Holt, 536 F.2d 105 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1061, 97 S.Ct. 785, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977). We distinguish City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987), because the Supreme Court found that the enforceable portion of the challenged Houston ordinance dealt exclusively with speech, whereas section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1987), encompasses both speech and conduct. In fact, appellant was convicted under section 843.02 exclusively for his physical conduct, not for any verbal obstruction of police.

DELL, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Goffin v. State, 560 So. 2d 421, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3114, 1990 WL 58575 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

560 So. 2d 421 (Goffin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Porter v. State
582 So. 2d 41 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)