State v. Carlson

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Carlson

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 93

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1989

DocketCase No. 88-40 AP (County Court Case No. 87-39713 MM)

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 93 (State v. Carlson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Carlson, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 93 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

LAWRENCE D. FAY, Circuit Judge.

The State of Florida appealed the trial court’s granting of a Motion to Dismiss a charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on a vessel, Section 327.35(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The County Court found the controlling phrase defining DUI-vessel, “operate,” which was defined as “navigate or otherwise use a vessel,” to be unconstitutionally vague. This Court agrees that Section 327.35(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), is vague and the Court adopts the order entered by the County Court. It should be noted that in 1988 the legislature amended Section 327.35(1)(a) and changed the phrase “operate-navigate or otherwise use” to “be in actual physical control.” This change eliminated the inherent vagueness in the phrase “otherwise use” and indicates the [94]*94legislature realized the law challenged in this case was not precise enough. Consequently, this Court AFFIRMS the granting of the Motion to Dismiss and this cause is REMANDED to the County Court for proceedings consistent with this decision.

DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 22nd day of June, A.D., 1989.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

LAWRENCE D. FAY, Circuit Judge.

The State of Florida appealed the trial court’s granting of a Motion to Dismiss a charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on a vessel, Section 327.35(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The County Court found the controlling phrase defining DUI-vessel, “operate,” which was defined as “navigate or otherwise use a vessel,” to be unconstitutionally vague. This Court agrees that Section 327.35(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), is vague and the Court adopts the order entered by the County Court. It should be noted that in 1988 the legislature amended Section 327.35(1)(a) and changed the phrase “operate-navigate or otherwise use” to “be in actual physical control.” This change eliminated the inherent vagueness in the phrase “otherwise use” and indicates the [94]*94legislature realized the law challenged in this case was not precise enough. Consequently, this Court AFFIRMS the granting of the Motion to Dismiss and this cause is REMANDED to the County Court for proceedings consistent with this decision.

DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 22nd day of June, A.D., 1989.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carlson-flacirct-1989.