State ex rel. Lehman v. Buchanan
Opinion
The appellant was arrested and charged with drunk driving in the City of Miami, under a traffic ordinance of Metropolitan Dade County which had superseded the city’s traffic ordinance for such offense.1 He sought release on a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. On hearing, the writ was discharged and the petitioner was remanded to the custody of the respondent sheriff.
Petitioner appealed, contending the ordinance is invalid for insufficiency in its title and because the minimum penalty provided therein is more than the minimum penalty provided in the state law governing such an offense. We hold appellant’s contentions are without merit and affirm. The ordinance is valid under the requirements of title and notice, as set out in § 1.02(b) of the Metro Charter.2 See 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 415; 37 Am.Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 146. The penalties prescribed in the ordinance were within the authority therefor as granted in § 6.15(B) of the Metro Charter. The fact that the penalty prescribed in the ordinance fixed a minimtim higher than the minimum specified in the State law relating to such an offense did not bring the ordinance in conflict with applicable state law within the meaning of the prohibition against such conflicts as contained in subsection (5) of section 11 of Article VIII of the Constitution, F.S.A., the home rule amendment. The conflict provision did not require that the state and Metro penalties be identical.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
190 So. 2d 594 (State ex rel. Lehman v. Buchanan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.