Ricketts and Carroll v. Village of Miami Shores, Florida, 16-2212

Background

Hermine Ricketts and Tom Carroll maintained a front-yard vegetable garden for ~17 years in Miami Shores; no fines were imposed initially but they were later issued a code notice requiring removal.
After administrative hearings, the Village code enforcement board found a violation and authorized $50/day fines; the couple removed the garden and voluntarily dismissed their administrative appeal.
The couple then filed a new circuit-court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, bringing a facial constitutional challenge to the Village zoning code amendment that now states “Vegetable gardens are permitted in rear yards only.”
The trial court rejected their claims (due process, equal protection, privacy, and property-rights arguments) and applied rational-basis review; the court upheld the ordinance.
On appeal, the Third District affirmed, concluding (1) plaintiffs were limited to a facial challenge (as-applied claims were barred by res judicata/waiver based on the prior administrative proceeding), (2) no fundamental right was implicated, and (3) the ordinance is rationally related to legitimate aesthetic and community-protection interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may press an as-applied constitutional challenge after the administrative proceeding	Ricketts/Carroll sought to assert constitutional rights to grow food in front yard as applied to them	Village contended prior administrative proceedings and dismissal bar as-applied constitutional claims	As-applied claims barred by res judicata/waiver; only a facial challenge was before the court
Whether the ordinance infringes a fundamental property right requiring strict scrutiny	Plaintiffs argued Article I, §2 protects right to acquire/possess property including using front yard to grow food	Village argued property rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable land-use regulation for public welfare	No fundamental right infringed; strict scrutiny not triggered
Whether the right of privacy (Article I, §23) protects choices concerning growing food at home	Plaintiffs invoked privacy precedent (In re Browning) to claim protection for food choices	Village said Browning addressed medical self-determination, not general food-production choices; zoning limits do not implicate privacy	Right of privacy did not extend to front-yard gardening; privacy claim rejected
Whether the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face under rational-basis review	Plaintiffs argued the ban is arbitrary, targets only vegetable gardens, invites subjective enforcement, and is not rationally related to aesthetics	Village argued ordinance advances legitimate interests (appearance, character, property values, minimizing land-use conflicts) and is fairly debatable	Court upheld ordinance under deferential rational-basis standard as rationally related to legitimate aesthetic and community-protection goals

Key Cases Cited

Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1990) (property rights protected by Article I, §2 but subject to reasonable regulation for public welfare)
In re Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) (privacy and medical self-determination in end-of-life decisions)
Membreno & Florida Ass’n of Vendors, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 188 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (rational-basis review is highly deferential; challenger must negate every conceivable basis)
Kuvin v. City of Coral Gables, 62 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (aesthetic zoning regulations can validly preserve residential character)
Cashatt v. State, 873 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (standard for facial challenges: challenger must show no set of circumstances exists under which statute would be valid)
Kirby v. City of Archer, 790 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (res judicata and waiver principles bar claims that could have been raised earlier)
Haire v. Fla. Dept. of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 870 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2004) (rational-basis burden on challenger to negate conceivable bases)
Golden v. McCarty, 337 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1976) (government power to regulate property for health, safety, and general welfare)