CopyCited 6 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11348
...Instead, the record evidences a careful effort on the part of the City to draw a balance between the commercial speech rights of the proprietors and the problems the Ordinance addresses. 8 III. 21 Appellants also contend that the Ordinance is invalid under Fla.Stat. § 166.0443, which prohibits municipalities (not employers) from requiring the "registration ......
...tend the Ordinance is "preempted to the state or ... otherwise prohibited by law;" (2) it is a valid exercise of police power; (3) it is narrowly tailored, as described above; and (4) it does not unfairly discriminate against a class of persons. Id. § 166.0443(1)a-d....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16084, 1994 WL 634434
...f commercial and noncommercial newsracks.” Id. at -,
113 S.Ct. at 1516. Thus, the Ordinance satisfies all four prongs of the Central Hudson Gas analysis and does not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. B. Florida Statute §
166.0443 Having found that the Ordinance is valid under the First Amendment, the Court now examines the Ordinance’s validity under Florida Statute §
166.0443 5 (the “Statute”). Plaintiff contends that the Statute invalidates the Ordinance. Specifically, Florida Statute §
166.0443 prohibits municipalities from enacting any ordinance that requires the “registration or background screening of any individual engaged in or applying for a specific type or category of employment in the county or municipality or require...
...) is narrowly tailored to serve the protection sought and (d) does not unfairly discriminate against any class of individuals. The Court finds that the Ordinance meets the requirements of this savings clause and thus does not violate Florida Statute § 166.0443....
...Conclusion Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, and the Court being fully advised, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that final judgment be, and the same is hereby, entered in favor of Defendant. The validly enacted Ordinance does not violate the First Amendment or Florida Statute § 166.0443....
...However, the Court does not find this to be an apt analogy and therefore finds that aesthetic concern is not a substantial governmental interest advanced by the Ordinance. Additionally, a "tourist-friendly” atmosphere is too amorphous a concept to constitute a substantial governmental interest. . Florida Statutes § 166.0443 provides, in full: (1) Except as authorized by law, no county or municipality shall enact or enforce any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, policy, or other action which requires the registration or background screening of any indiv...
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...careful effort on the part of the City to draw a balance between
the commercial speech rights of the proprietors and the problems
the Ordinance addresses.8
III.
Appellants also contend that the Ordinance is invalid under
Fla.Stat. § 166.0443, which prohibits municipalities (not
employers) from requiring the "registration ......
...Ordinance is "preempted to the state or ... otherwise prohibited by
law;" (2) it is a valid exercise of police power; (3) it is
narrowly tailored, as described above; and (4) it does not
unfairly discriminate against a class of persons. Id. §
166.0443(1)a-d....
