State v. McKnight

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. McKnight

710 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5924, 1998 WL 264116

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 710 So. 2d 1029 (State v. McKnight) 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

State v. McKnight, 710 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5924, 1998 WL 264116 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, Judge.

Section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), part of our DUI statute, requires the court to order impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle being driven by the person who is convicted, unless the court finds that the family of the owner has no other public or private means of transportation. Although the defendant did not argue that this provision is unconstitutional, the trial court concluded that it was, without citing any authority, and refused to apply it. Several months earlier the Florida Supreme Court had held that this provision was not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Muller, 693 So.2d 976 (Fla.1997). Before that, this court had held that the statute does not deny due process or violate equal protection. State v. Ginn, 660 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reversed.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, Judge.

Section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), part of our DUI statute, requires the court to order impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle being driven by the person who is convicted, unless the court finds that the family of the owner has no other public or private means of transportation. Although the defendant did not argue that this provision is unconstitutional, the trial court concluded that it was, without citing any authority, and refused to apply it. Several months earlier the Florida Supreme Court had held that this provision was not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Muller, 693 So.2d 976 (Fla.1997). Before that, this court had held that the statute does not deny due process or violate equal protection. State v. Ginn, 660 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reversed.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5924, 1998 WL 264116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcknight-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack