overbreadth doctrine in Florida

2018The overbreadth doctrine therefore requires that "particularly where conduct and not merely speech is involved ... the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Id. ; see also United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285 , 292, 128 S.Ct. 1830 , 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008) ("According to our First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech....

2012In the First Amendment context, a court must find a statute unconstitutionally overbroad if “it reaches a substantial number of impermissible applications,” Ferber, 458 U.S. at 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1587 . “[B]ecause application of the overbreadth doctrine is ‘strong medicine,’ it should be employed sparingly by courts.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1022 (Fla.2005).

2008However, “the overbreadth doctrine is an unusual doctrine that must be used sparingly, especially where the stat ute in question is primarily meant to regulate conduct and not merely pure speech.” Shapiro v. State, 696 So.2d 1321, 1324-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 412 (Fla.1991)).

2001Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 412 (Fla.1991)("Application of the overbreadth doctrine is particularly appropriate where ... the statute clearly infringes upon protected forms of free speech.").

2007Fisheries, 453 So.2d at 1353 , but the overbreadth doctrine also has occasionally been applied to statutes infringing on other fundamental rights, including the right to travel, see Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609-610 , 124 S.Ct. 1941 , 158 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004).

2001The overbreadth doctrine applies only if the legislation "is susceptible of application to conduct protected by the First Amendment." Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla.1984).

2001The overbreadth doctrine applies only if the legislation "is susceptible of application to conduct protected by the First Amendment." Carricarte v. State, 384 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 874 , 101 S.Ct. 215 , 66 L.Ed.2d 95 (1980)(citing Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 90 S.Ct. 1153 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970)).

1985Indeed, "the overbreadth doctrine applies only if the [statute] `is susceptible of application to conduct protected by the First Amendment.'" Southeastern Fisheries at 1353 (quoting Carricarte v. State, 384 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 874 , 101 S.Ct. 215 , 66 L.Ed.2d 95 (1980).

2011"The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process." Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 , 122 S.Ct. 1389 , 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002); see City of Daytona Beach v. Del Percio, 476 So.2d 197, 202 (Fla.1985); Montas, 993 So.2d at 1129 .

2011“The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 , 122 S.Ct. 1389 , 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002); see City of Daytona Beach v. Del Percio, 476 So.2d 197, 202 (Fla.1985); Montas, 993 So.2d at 1129 .

2023Under the overbreadth doctrine, the government is prohibited “from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is also prohibited, or chilled, in the process.” Id. at 1029 (quoting Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 255 (2002)).

2011"The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process." Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 , 122 S.Ct. 1389 , 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002); see City of Daytona Beach v. Del Percio, 476 So.2d 197, 202 (Fla.1985); Montas, 993 So.2d at 1129 .

2007An overbreadth challenge based upon infringement of First Amendment rights may be raised "even by one who does not show that his own conduct is innocent and not subject to being regulated by a narrowly drawn statute." State v. Ashcraft, 378 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla.1979).

2004See also State v. Ashcraft, 378 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla.1979) ("Where the asserted overbreadth of a law may have a chilling effect on the exercise of first amendment freedoms, a challenge will be permitted even by one who does not show that his own conduct is innocent and not subject to being regulated by a narrowly drawn statute.").

2018This analysis recognizes "legitimate interests in maintaining comprehensive controls over harmful constitutionally unprotected conduct" and the "social costs created by the overbreadth doctrine when it blocks application of a law to constitutionally unprotected speech." Id. (quoting Virginia v. Hicks , 539 U.S. 113 , 119, 123 S.Ct. 2191 , 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) ; alterations incorporated).

2018This analysis recognizes "legitimate interests in maintaining comprehensive controls over harmful constitutionally unprotected conduct" and the "social costs created by the overbreadth doctrine when it blocks application of a law to constitutionally unprotected speech." Id. (quoting Virginia v. Hicks , 539 U.S. 113 , 119, 123 S.Ct. 2191 , 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) ; alterations incorporated).

2018The overbreadth doctrine therefore requires that "particularly where conduct and not merely speech is involved ... the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Id. ; see also United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285 , 292, 128 S.Ct. 1830 , 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008) ("According to our First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech....

2018The overbreadth doctrine therefore requires that "particularly where conduct and not merely speech is involved ... the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Id. ; see also United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285 , 292, 128 S.Ct. 1830 , 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008) ("According to our First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech....

2018State v. Barnes, 686 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

1997See Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. at 1191 n. 7. [3] Thus, as we noted in Barnes , "outside the limited context of the First Amendment in which the overbreadth doctrine is recognized and applied, a defendant who only establishes that the statute `might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances' fails to demonstrate that the statute is wholly invalid." 686 So.2d at 637 (quoting Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. at 2100 ).

2017Additionally, Norman contends that Florida’s Open Carry Law is unconstitutionally "over-broad.” However, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, "outside the limited First Amendment context, a criminal statute may not be attacked as overbroad.” Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 268 n.18, 104 S.Ct. 2403 , 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); see also United States v. Chester, 514 Fed.Appx. 393, 395 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that “no circuit has accepted an overbreadth challenge in the Second Amendment context.”).

2015United States v. Chester (Chester III), 514 Fed.Appx. 393, 395 (4th Cir.2013) (“[N]o circuit has accepted an overbreadth challenge in the Second Amendment context.”); Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 101 (refusing to consider Second Amendment overbreadth challenge because “[o]verbreadth challenges are generally limited to the First Amendment context,” and “even if ... overbreadth analysis may apply to Second Amendment cases,” it may be invoked only by plaintiffs with a valid as-applied challenge); Decastro, 682 F.3d at 169 (“There is no overbreadth argument that [appellant] can make in the Second Amendm

2016In J.L.S., the Third District set forth the following principles concerning the overbreadth doctrine: The doctrine of overbreadth permits an individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an enact *316 ment facially “because it also threatens others not before the court—those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1019 (Fla.2005) (quoting Brackett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794

2012In the First Amendment context, a court must find a statute unconstitutionally overbroad if “it reaches a substantial number of impermissible applications,” Ferber, 458 U.S. at 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1587 . “[B]ecause application of the overbreadth doctrine is ‘strong medicine,’ it should be employed sparingly by courts.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1022 (Fla.2005).

2007See State v. Brake, 796 So.2d 522 (Fla. 2001); Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

2007See State v. Brake, 796 So.2d 522 (Fla.2001); Dickerson v. State, 783 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

2000See Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 1984); Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065, 1072 (5th Cir.1981).

2000See Southeastern Fisheries Ass’n, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla.1984); Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065, 1072 (5th Cir.1981).

1997"If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail." Id.

1997“If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail.” Id.

2016In J.L.S., the Third District set forth the following principles concerning the overbreadth doctrine: The doctrine of overbreadth permits an individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an enact *316 ment facially “because it also threatens others not before the court—those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1019 (Fla.2005) (quoting Brackett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794

2016In J.L.S., the Third District set forth the following principles concerning the overbreadth doctrine: The doctrine of overbreadth permits an individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an enact *316 ment facially “because it also threatens others not before the court—those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1019 (Fla.2005) (quoting Brackett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794

2012In the First Amendment context, a court must find a statute unconstitutionally overbroad if “it reaches a substantial number of impermissible applications,” Ferber, 458 U.S. at 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1587 . “[B]ecause application of the overbreadth doctrine is ‘strong medicine,’ it should be employed sparingly by courts.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1022 (Fla.2005).

2012In the First Amendment context, a court must find a statute unconstitutionally overbroad if “it reaches a substantial number of impermissible applications,” Ferber, 458 U.S. at 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1587 . “[B]ecause application of the overbreadth doctrine is ‘strong medicine,’ it should be employed sparingly by courts.” Sult v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1022 (Fla.2005).

2017Additionally, Norman contends that Florida’s Open Carry Law is unconstitutionally "over-broad.” However, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, "outside the limited First Amendment context, a criminal statute may not be attacked as overbroad.” Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 268 n.18, 104 S.Ct. 2403 , 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); see also United States v. Chester, 514 Fed.Appx. 393, 395 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that “no circuit has accepted an overbreadth challenge in the Second Amendment context.”).

2017Additionally, Norman contends that Florida’s Open Carry Law is unconstitutionally "over-broad.” However, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, "outside the limited First Amendment context, a criminal statute may not be attacked as overbroad.” Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 268 n.18, 104 S.Ct. 2403 , 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); see also United States v. Chester, 514 Fed.Appx. 393, 395 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that “no circuit has accepted an overbreadth challenge in the Second Amendment context.”).

2005As the Supreme Court has warned, "the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge." Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 .

2005As the Supreme Court has warned, "the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge." Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 .

2004Even though the appellant's own conduct was proscribed by section 843.085(1), he nevertheless has standing to interpose and maintain an overbreadth challenge to this statute: This overbreadth doctrine permits an individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an enactment facially "because it also threatens others not before the court those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid." Id. at 235 (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.

2004Even though the appellant's own conduct was proscribed by section 843.085(1), he nevertheless has standing to interpose and maintain an overbreadth challenge to this statute: This overbreadth doctrine permits an individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an enactment facially "because it also threatens others not before the court those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid." Id. at 235 (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.

1997See Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. at 1191 n. 7. [3] Thus, as we noted in Barnes , "outside the limited context of the First Amendment in which the overbreadth doctrine is recognized and applied, a defendant who only establishes that the statute `might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances' fails to demonstrate that the statute is wholly invalid." 686 So.2d at 637 (quoting Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. at 2100 ).

1997See Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. at 1191 n. 7. [3] Thus, as we noted in Barnes , "outside the limited context of the First Amendment in which the overbreadth doctrine is recognized and applied, a defendant who only establishes that the statute `might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances' fails to demonstrate that the statute is wholly invalid." 686 So.2d at 637 (quoting Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. at 2100 ).