State v. Catalano
104 So. 3d 1069
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Catalano and Schermerhorn cited under 316.3045 for loud sound in Pinellas County, FL.
- Statute 316.3045 prohibits amplifying vehicle sound beyond 25 feet unless exempt.
- DMV rule 15B-13.001 defines “plainly audible” and measurement standards.
- Circuit court split: Davis upheld pre-2005 version; Easy Way deployment cited as contrary.
- Second District held 316.3045(3) creates a business/political exemption and is unconstitutional, not severable.
- This Court affirms the Second District’s invalidity ruling, with severability rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the plainly audible standard vague on its face? | Catalano argues vagueness. | State argues standard provides notice. | Not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Is the statute overbroad and a content-based restriction? | Statute restricts protected speech too broadly. | Regulation neutral to content. | Unconstitutionally overbroad and content-based. |
| Should 316.3045(3) be severed to save the statute? | Severance could preserve constitutionality. | Severance would misstate legislative intent. | Severance not appropriate; statute invalid as a whole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (time/place/manner regulation of speech; neutrality principle)
- Davis v. State, 710 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (upheld pre-2005 §316.3045; vagueness concern noted earlier)
- Montgomery v. State, 69 So.3d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (noting overbreadth concern for similar statute)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (statutes must be intelligible to ordinary people)
- Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1949) (rejection of vagueness challenges to some subjective terms)