Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Powell
262 So. 2d 881 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute defining any place visited by drug users for the purpose of unlawfully using drugs as a public nuisance is a constitutional exercise of the state's police power and is not void for vagueness if it conveys a definite warning of the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Ashlock were the owners of a parcel of land in Orange County, Florida.
- A building known as the Orlando Sports Stadium was situated on the Ashlocks' land.
- Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc., a Florida corporation, operated the Orlando Sports Stadium.
- Between June 6, 1970, and December 29, 1970, the Orlando Sports Stadium was visited by narcotic and other drug users on numerous occasions.
- The purpose of these visits was for the individuals to unlawfully use hallucinogenic drugs, barbiturates, amphetamines, and other narcotics.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida sued Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc., and its owners, the Ashlocks, in the Circuit Court of Orange County (trial court).
- The State's complaint sought to enjoin the use of the stadium as a public nuisance due to repeated instances of on-site illegal drug use.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the underlying Florida public nuisance statutes were unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants (as appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order to the District Court of Appeal, Second District.
- The District Court of Appeal transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Florida statutes that define a public nuisance as any place visited by drug users for the purpose of unlawfully using drugs, and which allow the state to enjoin the use of such a place, violate the Due Process Clause by being unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Adkins, J.
No, the Florida statutes are not unconstitutionally vague and do not violate the Due Process Clause. The Legislature has broad discretion under its police power to designate particular activities as public nuisances to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The statutes in question are not impermissibly vague because their language conveys a definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices; men of common intelligence can understand the evil the law seeks to remedy. The state's action is not aimed at punishing past conduct but is a form of preventive justice to abate a public offense. These statutes regulate conduct, not protected speech, and are a valid exercise of the state's power to control a public nuisance.
Dissenting - Drew, J. (Retired)
Yes, the statutes are palpably void and unconstitutional on their face. The statutes subject the owner or operator of any public building to abatement as a public nuisance merely because a law was violated on the premises, without any requirement that the owners have knowledge, either express or implied, of the violation. This strict liability standard makes it impossible for an innocent owner of a large public venue to defend against such an action. Under this interpretation, any large stadium or even a local store could be deemed a nuisance due to the illicit acts of individuals, placing an impossible burden on property owners.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the state's broad police power to regulate public health and morals by declaring properties where illegal activities occur as public nuisances. The court affirmed that a nuisance statute can withstand a constitutional vagueness challenge so long as it provides a commonly understood standard of conduct. The ruling establishes that the state can seek to enjoin the specific nuisance-creating use of a property without shutting down the entire operation. The dissent raises a critical point about the absence of a scienter (knowledge) requirement, highlighting a potential due process issue for innocent property owners that could be a focus of future litigation or legislative refinement.
