Holliday v. City of Tampa

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holliday v. City of Tampa

586 So. 2d 64, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5775, 1991 WL 85561

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 1991

DocketNo. 91-01215

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 586 So. 2d 64 (Holliday v. City of Tampa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holliday v. City of Tampa, 586 So. 2d 64, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5775, 1991 WL 85561 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s order affirming his conviction of loitering for the purpose of selling drugs. § 24-43, City of Tampa Code (1989). Petitioner challenges only the facial constitutionality of the city ordinance.

In Wyche v. State, 573 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), this court upheld the facial constitutionality of the Tampa ordinance prohibiting loitering for the purpose of prostitution. We find that the only difference between the two ordinances is the underlying criminal activity. Thus, the petition for certiorari is denied.

In order to give the supreme court discretion to review this decision, we certify the following question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida:

[65]*65IS SECTION 24-43, CITY OF TAMPA CODE (1989), FACIALLY CONSTITUTIONAL?

FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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