History
  • No items yet
midpage
Goffin v. State
560 So. 2d 421
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1990
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. On appeal appellant challenges section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1987), as being facially unconstitutional. No challenge to its constitutionality was raised below. We reject this challenge. Dreske v. Holt, 536 F.2d 105 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1061, 97 S.Ct. 785, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977). We distinguish City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987), because the Supreme Court found that the enforceable portion of the challenged Houston ordinance dealt exclusively with speech, whereas section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1987), encompasses both speech and conduct. In fact, appellant was convicted under section 843.02 exclusively for his physical conduct, not for any verbal obstruction of police.

DELL, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Goffin v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: May 9, 1990
Citation: 560 So. 2d 421
Docket Number: No. 89-1211
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.