Foster v. State (1973)

Other examples relied on by D.P. include Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 1980) (invalidating statute prohibiting wearing of mask or hood because "this law is susceptible of application to entirely innocent activities ... so as to create prohibitions that completely lack any rational basis"); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla.1973) (prohibiting punishment of possession of a simple screwdriver as being a burglary tool, without any showing of criminal inten…

Other examples relied on by D.P. include Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 1076, 1077 (Fla.1980) (invalidating statute prohibiting wearing of mask or hood because “this law is susceptible of application to entirely innocent activities ... so as to create prohibitions that completely lack any rational basis”); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla.1973) (prohibiting punishment of possession of a simple screwdriver as being a burglary tool, without any showing of criminal intent…

See Calliar v. State, 760 So.2d 885 (Fla.1999) (holding conviction of possession of burglary tools including screwdriver requires proof of intention to use tools to unlawfully enter premises of another); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 1973) (holding simple screwdriver is not burglary tool without proof defendant used screwdriver in breaking and entering); Sanders v. State, 25 Fla. L.

For example, this Court has upheld convictions for possession of bolt cutters and screwdrivers as burglary tools." (citation and footnotes omitted)); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla.1973) ("It would be an unconstitutional act—in excess of the State's police power—to criminalize the simple possession of a screwdriver, just as much as it would be to criminalize the possession of such items as ladies' hat pins, automobile tire irons kits, et cetera, without first requi…

See Saiez (possession of embossing equipment); State v. Walker, 444 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), affirmed and lower court opinion adopted, 461 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1984) (possession of "medicine"); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 1973) ("It would be an unconstitutional act — in excess of the State's police power — to criminalize the simple possession of a screwdriver, just as much as it would be to criminalize the possession of such items as ladies' hat pins, automobi…

In Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 1973), the Supreme Court of Florida stated: An examination of the burglary tool statute reveals that the potential for any number of common household tools to be "illegal" unless the statute is construed, in an appropriate case, such as this, to require that for such a tool to be "illegal," it must be used as a burglary tool — thus becoming a facet of the burglary, breaking and entering transaction, etc. Again, in State v. Thomas,…

That court’s reasoning, in turn, is apparently based upon a statement by the supreme court, in a somewhat different context, that “for such a tool [simple household tool] to be ‘illegal,’ it must be used as a burglary tool — thus becoming a facet of the burglary, breaking and entering transaction, etc.” Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla.1973), receded from in part, Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975).

See also Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 1973) ("[i]t would be an unconstitutional act — in excess of the State's police power — to criminalize the simple possession of a screwdriver").

See Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1973), receded from on other grounds, Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1975).

See, e.g., Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1973); Young v. State, 506 So.2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Compare Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1973), where we held that one cannot be convicted of possession of a burglary tool when that tool is nothing more than a simple screw driver, unless the screw driver is actually used in a burglary.

See Foster v. State, Fla.1973, 286 So.2d 549 .

See also, Foster v. State, Fla.1973, 286 So.2d 549 , opinion filed December 5, 1973.