Legal Opinion · Dissent

D.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 10, 1997No. 96-3289Published

1DissentGreen, Judge

Respectfully, I believe that sections 21-30.01(e)(2) and (3) of the Dade County Graffiti Ordinance are facially unconstitutional in that they are violative of the due process clause of both the state and federal constitutions.

I

Section 21-30.01(e)(2) of the graffiti ordinance criminalizes a minor’s mere possession of spray paint and broad-tipped markers on public property, highways, and streets, except when in the company of a supervising adult. Metropolitan Dade County, Code § 21-30.01(e)(2) (1994). Section 21-30.01(e)(3) of the ordinance criminalizes a minor’s mere possession of spray paint…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Bowers v. HardwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Bellotti v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API