Rollins v. State
354 So.2d 61 (1978)
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Protection Clause, a statutory classification that applies differently to similar businesses must rest on a difference that bears a just and reasonable relation to the statute's purpose, avoiding arbitrary and unreasonable distinctions.
Facts:
- Leon James Rollins owned and operated an establishment known as South Florida Billiards.
- Florida Statute Section 849.06 (1975) made it unlawful for owners or employees of billiard parlors to permit anyone under the age of 21 years to visit, frequent, or play in their establishments.
- The statute provided exceptions for minors who were on active duty in the Armed Services, had a written and notarized parental permit, were married, or were accompanied by a parent or guardian.
- Section 849.06 explicitly exempted persons playing billiards in "bona fide bowling establishments," defined as having 12 lanes or more, from these restrictions.
- Many bona fide bowling establishments that offered billiards also served alcoholic beverages.
Procedural Posture:
- Leon James Rollins was arrested at his business, South Florida Billiards, on September 1, 1976.
- He was charged in the County Court for Dade County, Florida, Crimes Division, with a violation of Section 849.06, Florida Statutes (1975).
- On October 13, 1976, Rollins filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of due process and equal protection.
- The County Court denied Rollins's motion to dismiss, finding Section 849.06 constitutional on its face and as applied to him.
- Rollins then pleaded nolo contendere, specifically reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
- The County Court adjudicated Rollins guilty upon his plea and fined him $50.
- Rollins, as appellant, prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Statute Section 849.06 (1975), which prohibits minors from billiard parlors but exempts bona fide bowling establishments offering billiards, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Sundberg
Yes, Florida Statute Section 849.06 (1975) violates the Equal Protection Clause because its classification is arbitrary and lacks a just and reasonable relation to a legitimate state purpose. The Court found no practical differences between billiards played in a dedicated billiard parlor and billiards played in a bowling alley sufficient to warrant a special classification that subjected only billiard parlor owners to penalties for allowing minors to play. The rational basis test requires that a statutory classification rest on some difference that bears a just and reasonable relation to the statute's purpose. The Court noted the irrationality of permitting a bowling alley with pool tables and a cocktail lounge to admit minors without restriction while penalizing a neighboring billiard parlor, potentially one not serving alcohol, under the statute. The State's suggestion that the legislature might have concluded that exposure to gambling is more apt to occur in billiard parlors was deemed indeterminate, and the Court stated it would not sustain legislative classifications based on judicial hypothesis without clearly enunciated purposes. Furthermore, the statute's allowance for minors with parental consent to enter billiard parlors undercut the State's proposed rationale regarding exposure to undesirable atmospheres or gambling. Citing precedents like McLaughlin v. Florida and Gammon v. Cobb, the Court affirmed that legislative classifications must be reasonable and not arbitrary. The statute's discriminatory application was found to be unreasonable, thus violating both federal and state equal protection guarantees.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the application of the rational basis test for equal protection challenges to economic or social welfare legislation, particularly when no suspect class or fundamental right is involved. It demonstrates that while courts generally defer to legislative classifications, they will strike down statutes that draw distinctions lacking a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. The ruling emphasizes the importance of consistency in regulatory schemes, preventing similar businesses or activities from being treated disparately without a justifiable reason. This case serves as a reminder that arbitrary distinctions, even in areas within the state's police power, are constitutionally impermissible.
