State v. Catalano
60 So. 3d 1139
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Catalano and Schermerhorn were cited under Fla. Stat. §316.3045(1) for playing music loudly from a motor vehicle.
- The statute prohibits operating a radio or sound device so that sound is plainly audible at 25 feet or louder than inside the vehicle near churches, schools, or hospitals.
- The statute contains an exemption for vehicles used for business or political purposes; it also allows local regulation of time and manner of such operation.
- In county court, both defendants pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; motions were denied; pleas were amended to nolo contendere with adjudication withheld.
- The circuit court relied on Easy Way of Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County and Davis v. State to assess facial validity of the “plainly audible” standard; State sought certiorari; petition denied and a question was certified as of great public importance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is plainly audible unconstitutional on its face? | Catalano argues vagueness/overbreadth under Easy Way. | State contends Davis controls and supports validity. | No; the circuit court did not depart; the standard is facially unconstitutional per Easy Way. |
| Is the 316.3045(1) standard content-neutral or content-based? | State claims content-neutral; exemption for business/political speech is permissible. | Catalano argues exemption creates content-based discrimination against noncommercial speech. | Content-based; violates First Amendment; not narrowly tailored. |
| Did the circuit court depart from essential requirements by applying Easy Way over Davis? | State argues Davis should control; Easy Way is inapplicable to highway safety statute. | Circuit court properly followed Easy Way’s analysis of plainly audible standard. | No departure; Easy Way applicable to facial challenges to plainly audible standard. |
| Should certiorari be granted and what is the remedy? | State requests certiorari to correct circuit court’s application of precedent. | Court should affirm denial and resolve constitutional issue. | Petition denied; question certified as of great public importance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easy Way of Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, 674 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (plainly audible standard facially vague and invites arbitrary enforcement)
- Davis v. State, 710 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (earlier version of 316.3045 constitutional; supports Davis analysis)
- DA Mortgage, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 486 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2007) (content-neutral regulation with narrowly tailored interests)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1993) (time/place/manner restrictions must apply equally to all speech)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (time/place/manner restrictions may be subject to intermediate scrutiny)
- Jones, People v., 188 Ill.2d 352 (Ill. 1999) (content-based regulation; advertising exemptions undermine neutrality)
- U.S. v. Edge Broad. Co., 509 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1993) (commercial speech in First Amendment context often receives lesser protection)