State v. Dodge

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Dodge

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 1

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1989

DocketCase No. CRC 88-3579 (Appellate No.)

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (State v. Dodge) 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. Dodge, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

HOWARD P. RIVES, Circuit Judge.

UPON due consideration of the record and oral argument, the court finds the noise ordinance constitutional on its face. The County Court relied upon City of Houston v Hill, 789 F.2d 1103, cert. denied, 483 U.S. _; Clanton v State, 357 So.2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); and State v Saunders, 339 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1976). Those cases dealt with impermissible ordinances which attempted to regulate constitutionally protected speech. The noise ordinance here is content-neutral and regulates excessively loud noise rather than constitutionally protected speech. The precise language of the ordinance, “loud and raucous [2]*2noise,” has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Kovacs v Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).

Thus, this Court holds the noise ordinance to be constitutional on its face and that the County Court must hold a hearing or otherwise appropriately determine the facts to decide whether the ordinance is constitutional as applied.

REVERSED and REMANDED to the Court below for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this Order and Opinion.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

HOWARD P. RIVES, Circuit Judge.

UPON due consideration of the record and oral argument, the court finds the noise ordinance constitutional on its face. The County Court relied upon City of Houston v Hill, 789 F.2d 1103, cert. denied, 483 U.S. _; Clanton v State, 357 So.2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); and State v Saunders, 339 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1976). Those cases dealt with impermissible ordinances which attempted to regulate constitutionally protected speech. The noise ordinance here is content-neutral and regulates excessively loud noise rather than constitutionally protected speech. The precise language of the ordinance, “loud and raucous [2]*2noise,” has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Kovacs v Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).

Thus, this Court holds the noise ordinance to be constitutional on its face and that the County Court must hold a hearing or otherwise appropriately determine the facts to decide whether the ordinance is constitutional as applied.

REVERSED and REMANDED to the Court below for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this Order and Opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dodge-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack