Montgomery v. State
69 So. 3d 1023
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Montgomery played amplified music from his car, drawing police attention for a noise violation.
- Upon stopping, officers learned his license was suspended, leading to his arrest and a vehicle search.
- Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the car as a result of the search.
- Montgomery was charged with trafficking cocaine 28 grams+, driving while license revoked as a habitual offender, possession of cannabis 20 grams or less, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Montgomery moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the noise statute, 316.3045(1)(a), was void for vagueness and overbreadth and infringed free expression; after a hearing, the trial court denied suppression; he entered a plea of nolo contendere reserving appellate rights.
- The trial court’s ruling prompted de novo review of the statute’s constitutionality and the exclusionary-rule question under good faith reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of plainly audible | Montgomery argues plain[y] audibl[e] is vague. | State contends statutory standard, with rules defining plainly audible, provides fair notice. | Statute not void for vagueness; clearly communicates prohibited conduct. |
| Overbreadth and content-based restriction | Montgomery claims the statute is overbroad and targets protected speech. | State maintains noise regulation addresses conduct not speech and is content-neutral. | Statute is unconstitutionally overbroad due to content-based exceptions for business/political speech. |
| Content neutrality and level of scrutiny | Montgomery asserts the statute is content-based; strict scrutiny required. | State argues prior decisions sustain regulation; not purely content-based. | Statute is content-based; fails scrutiny; invalid as applied. |
| Good faith exception to exclusionary rule | Suppression should follow Fourth Amendment remedy. | Officer relied reasonably on statute’s validity. | Exclusionary rule not applied; suppression denied due to good-faith reliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (First Amendment protection extends to amplified sound)
- Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1948) (Amplified sound within reasonable limits protected speech)
- Davis v. State, 710 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (Noise code not vague; distance-based standards upheld (earlier version))
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1993) (Time/place/m manner regulation must be content-neutral and broadly applied)
- Jones (People v. Jones), 188 Ill.2d 352, 242 Ill.Dec. 267, 721 N.E.2d 546 (Ill. 1999) (Sound amplification statute found content-based and unconstitutional)
- DA Mortgage, Inc. v. City of Miami, 486 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2007) (Content-neutrality discussion in analogous context; distinctions drawn)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (Exclusionary rule purposes; police good faith reliance on invalidated statute)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism (duplicate citation above), 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (First Amendment protection for amplified sound)