UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

JOHN T. AND ESTHER N. DODERO, 

LIONEL AND TAMMY ALFORD, AS 

CO-TRUSTEES OF THE LIONEL D. 

ALFORD, JR. AND TAMMY NIX ALFORD 

REVOCABLE TRUST, 

DOUGLAS B. AND SHELLY L. BUSH, 

ST. JOHNS FLORIDA PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Case No.: 

KI FLORIDA PROPERTIES, L.L.C., 

MICHAEL D. HUCKABEE AND 

JANET M. HUCKABEE AS CO-TRUSTEES 

OF THE ANGUS B. WILES TRUST, 

CAMPING ON THE GULF LAND, L.L.C., 

SANDY SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC., TODD HARLICKA, 

CHRISTOPHER F. CORRADO 

EDWARD J. AND JOY L. MCMILLIAN, 

JE COASTAL PROPERTIES, L.L.C., ERIC AND 

DEBORAH WILHELM AS CO-TRUSTEES OF 

THE ERIC AND DEBORAH WILHELM 

REVOCABLE TRUST, DAVID A. BRADFORD 

AS TRUSTEE OF THE ELIZABETH M. 

BRADFORD REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 

JULY 12, 2012, AND PARKER H. PETIT, 

 Plaintiffs 

 v. 

WALTON COUNTY, A POLITICAL 

SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; 

MICHAEL A. ADKINSON, JR., IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WALTON 

COUNTY SHERIFF, 

 Defendants 

________________________________/ 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 24
2

COMPLAINT 

 John T. and Esther N. Dodero, Lionel and Tammy Alford, as co-trustees of 

the Lionel D. Alford, Jr. and Tammy Nix Alford Revocable Trust, Douglas B. and 

Shelly L. Bush, St. Johns Florida Properties, L.L.C., KI Florida Properties, L.L.C., 

Michael D. and Janet M. Huckabee as co-trustees of the Angus B. Wiles Trust, 

Camping on the Gulf Land, L.L.C., Sandy Shores Property Owners Association, 

Inc., Todd Harlicka, Christopher F. Corrado, Edward J. and Joy L. McMillian, JE 

Coastal Properties, L.L.C., Eric and Deborah Wilhelm, as co-trustees of the Eric and 

Deborah Wilhelm Revocable Trust, David A. Bradford as Trustee of the Elizabeth 

M. Bradford Revocable Trust dated July 12, 2012, and Parker H. Petit, (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”), hereby file this Complaint against Walton County (“County”) and 

Walton County Sheriff Michael A. Adkinson, Jr. (“Sheriff”) (collectively 

Defendants), to seek relief under the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the 

Florida Constitution. In support, Plaintiffs allege: 

Parties 

1. Plaintiffs, John T. and Esther N. Dodero, are the owners of a beachfront 

condominium property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 19-3S-18-16110-000-

0240) (“Dodero Property”). Specifically, located at 142 Beachside Dr. #24, Santa 

Rosa Beach, Florida 32459, the Dodero Property includes ownership of an undivided 

share of common elements appurtenant thereto, which include beachfront property 

that extends seaward to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and includes 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 24
3

dry sand beach. Copies of the deed and condominium documents are included as 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

2. Plaintiffs, Lionel and Tammy Alford, are co-trustees of the Lionel D. 

Alford, Jr. and Tammy Nix Alford Revocable Trust (“Alford Trust”). The Alford 

Trust owns beachfront property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 34-2S-21-

42000-019-0010) (“Alford Property”). Specifically, located at 20 Sandy Beach 

Road, Miramar Beach, Florida 32550, the Alford Property extends seaward to the 

mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of 

the deed is included in Composite Exhibit 1. 

3. Plaintiffs, Douglas B. and Shelly L. Bush are co-owners of beachfront 

property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 24-3S-19-25120-000-0302) (“Bush 

Property”). Specifically, located at 659 Eastern Lake Road, Santa Rosa Beach, 

Florida 32459, the Bush Property extends seaward to the mean highwater line of the 

Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included in 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

4. Plaintiff, St. Johns Florida Properties, L.L.C., is the owner of multiple 

beachfront properties in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 04-3S-20-34000-009-

0000 and 04-3S-20-34000-010-0000) (“St. Johns Properties”). Specifically, located 

at 6061 County Highway 30A W, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459, and 6039 

County Highway 30A W, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459, the St. Johns Properties 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 24
4

extend seaward to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and include dry 

sand beach. Copies of the deeds are included in Composite Exhibit 1. 

5. Plaintiff, KI Florida Properties, L.L.C., is the owner of beachfront 

property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 33-2S-21-42170-017-0050) (“KI 

Property”). Specifically, located at 747 Scenic Gulf Drive, Miramar Beach, Florida 

32550, the KI Property extends seaward to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of 

Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included as Composite 

Exhibit 1. 

6. Plaintiffs, Michael D. and Janet M. Huckabee are co-trustees of the 

Angus B. Wiles Trust (“Wiles Trust”). The Wiles Trust is the owner of beachfront 

property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 12-3S-20-34040-010-0020) (“Wiles 

Property”). Specifically located at 756 Blue Mountain Road, Santa Rosa Beach, 

Florida 32459, the Wiles Property extend seaward to the mean highwater line of the 

Gulf of Mexico and include dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included as 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

7. Plaintiff, Camping on the Gulf Land, L.L.C., is the owner of beachfront 

property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 34-2S-21-42000-003-0000) 

(“Camping Property”). Specifically, located at 10005 Emerald Coast Parkway W, 

Miramar Beach, Florida 32550, the Camping Property extends seaward to the mean 

highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the 

deed is included as Composite Exhibit 1. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 24
5

8. Plaintiff, Sandy Shores Property Owners Association, Inc., is the owner 

of beachfront property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 35-3S-18-16033-000-

00A0) (“Shores Property”). Specifically, located at Sandy Shores Court, Inlet Beach, 

Florida 32461, the Shores Property extends to the mean highwater line of the Gulf 

of Mexico and includes the dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included as 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

9. Plaintiff, Todd Harlicka, is the owner of property in the Sandy Shores 

Subdivision of Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 35-3S-18-16030-000-0120) 

(“Harlicka Property”). Specifically, located at 80 Sandy Shores Ct., Inlet Beach, 

Florida 32461, the Harlicka Property by way of inclusion in the Sandy Shores 

Subdivision includes an undivided ownership interest in the Shores Property which 

extends to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and includes the dry sand 

beach. Copies of the deed and homeowner’s association documents are included as 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

10. Plaintiff, Christopher Corrado, is the owner of beachfront property in 

the Sandy Shores Subdivision of Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 35-3S-18-

16033-000-0030) (“Corrado Property”). Specifically, located at 113-A Sandy 

Shores Court, Inlet Beach, Florida 32461, the Corrado Property by way of inclusion 

in the Sandy Shores Subdivision also includes an undivided ownership interest in 

the Shores Property which extends to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 24
6

and includes the dry sand beach. Copies of the deed and homeowner’s association 

documents are included as Composite Exhibit 1. 

11. Plaintiffs, Edward J. and Joy L. McMillian, are the owners of 

beachfront property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 28-3S-18-16000-011-

0010) (“McMillan Property”). Specifically, located at 8016 East County Highway 

30A Inlet Beach, Florida 32461, the McMillan Property extends seaward to the mean 

highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the 

deed is included as Composite Exhibit 1. 

12. Plaintiff, JE Coastal Properties, L.L.C., is the owner of beachfront 

property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 12-3S-20-34040-010-0040) (“JE 

Property”). Specifically, located at 778 Blue Mountain Road, Santa Rosa Beach, 

Florida 32459, the JE Property extends seaward to the mean highwater line of the 

Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included as 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

13. Plaintiffs, Eric and Deborah Wilhelm are co-trustees of the Eric and 

Deborah Wilhelm Revocable Trust (“Wilhelm Trust”). The Wilhelm Trust is the 

owner of beachfront property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 03-3S-20-

34000-012-0000) (“Wilhelm Property”). Specifically, located at 5305 County 

Highway 30A W, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459, the Wilhelm Property extends 

seaward to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand 

beach. A copy of the deed is included as Composite Exhibit 1. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 6 of 24
7

14. Plaintiff, David A. Bradford, is the trustee of the Elizabeth M. Bradford 

Revocable Trust dated July 12, 2012 (“Bradford Trust”). The Bradford Trust owns 

beachfront property in Walton County, Florida (Parcel ID# 08-3S-19-25020-00A0130) (“Bradford Property”). Specifically located at 251 Gulf Shore Dr., Santa Rosa 

Beach, Florida 32459, the Bradford Property extends to the mean highwater line of 

the Gulf of Mexico and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included in 

Composite Exhibit 1. 

15. Plaintiff, Parker H. Petit, is the owner of beachfront property in Walton 

County, Florida (Parcel ID# 35-3S-18-16020-00A-0160) (“Petit Property”). 

Specifically, located at 145 Paradise by the Sea Boulevard, Inlet Beach, Florida 

32461, the Petit Property extends to the mean highwater line of the Gulf of Mexico 

and includes dry sand beach. A copy of the deed is included as Composite Exhibit 

1. 

16. Defendant, Walton County (the “County”) is a citizen of the State of 

Florida, acting through its Board of County Commissioners (“Board”). 

17. Defendant, Walton County Sheriff Michael A. Adkinson, Jr. 

(“Sheriff”), is the chief law enforcement officer for Walton County and is charged 

with enforcing laws in Walton County. 

Jurisdiction

18. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs 

raise questions under the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 7 of 24
8

§ 1343(a)(3) because the Plaintiffs challenge the County’s deprivation of rights 

under color of state law; and under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because the Plaintiff seeks 

declaratory and injunctive relief. 

Venue 

19. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida is the 

appropriate venue because the Defendants reside in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b)(1), and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred within this District, id. § 1391(b)(2). Moreover, according to the Local 

Rules of the Northern District, the Pensacola Division is the appropriate venue 

because the cause of action arises in Walton County, Florida. 

General Allegations 

20. In response to concerns over the potential spread of COVID-19, Walton 

County adopted 2020-08 (“Ordinance”) on March 19, 2020. Attached as Exhibit 2. 

Importantly, the Ordinance closed public beaches: 

1. All beaches within Walton County, Florida, are temporarily 

CLOSED to the public. 

2. It shall be unlawful for members of the public to access the 

beaches within Walton County. 

See Exhibit 2 at ¶’s 1-2. 

21. Prior to adoption of this Ordinance at the March 19, 2020 emergency 

meeting, the County Attorney expressly stated that the Board of County 

Commissioners had no authority to close privately owned beaches: 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 8 of 24
9

We don’t have the authority to keep beachfront property owners from 

using their private property. 

Um, So that being said, that we cannot keep beachfront property owners 

from their private property, and I’m trying to be upfront with everyone 

about that because I don’t want there to be confusion, um, because it 

will seem unfair to a lot of people, and I understand that. 

See https://walton.civicweb.net/document/66280?splitscreen=true&media=true. 

The statements begin at minute 3, 46 seconds and minute 4, 12 seconds, respectfully. 

22. On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-19 

(“EO 20-19”) commonly referred to as the “safer at home” order. Attached as 

Exhibit 3. EO 20-19 provides in relevant part that “all persons in Florida shall limit 

their movements and personal interactions outside of their home to only those 

necessary to obtain essential services or conduct essential activities.” See Exhibit 3 

at §1(B). 

23. EO 20-19 further defines “essential activities” to include “participating 

in recreational activities (consistent with social distancing guidelines) such as 

walking, biking, hiking, fishing, hunting, running, or swimming.” See Exhibit 3 at 

§3(A)(ii). 

24. On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-20 

(“EO 20-20”) that amended EO 20-19. Attached as Exhibit 4. EO 20-20 amended 

EO 20-19 as follows: 

Section 4 of Executive Order 20-91 should read, as follows: This Order shall 

supersede any conflicting official action or order issued by local officials in 

response to COVID-19. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 9 of 24
10

See Exhibit 4 at §1. 

25. At an emergency meeting on April 2, 2020, the Walton County Board 

of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2020-09 amending Ordinance 2020-

08 (hereinafter “Amended Ordinance”). Attached as Exhibit 5. The Amended 

Ordinance now provides: 

1. All beaches within Walton County, Florida are temporarily CLOSED to 

the public. 

2. It shall be unlawful for members of the public any person to enter upon or 

remain on to access the beaches within Walton County. 

3. Beach shall have the same definition as contained in Chapter 22, Walton 

County Waterways and Beach Activities Ordinance. Words not defined in 

this Ordinance shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. 

4. A violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a criminal offense and shall 

be punishable as provided in Section 252.50, Florida Statutes. 

See Exhibit 5 at ¶’s 1-4. 

26. The purpose of the Amended Ordinance is to close all beaches, whether 

public or private, and prohibit anyone from being on the beaches, including owners 

of private beach on their own private property. See 

https://walton.civicweb.net/document/66799?splitscreen=true&media=true

(emergency meeting adopting Amended Ordinance). 

27. The County, Sheriff, Walton County Code Enforcement, and South 

Walton Fire District, have been and are currently patrolling and occupying the 

private beachfront properties of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated beachfront 

property owners. 

28. The Sheriff, Walton County Code Enforcement, and South Walton Fire 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 10 of 24
11

District continue to enter and occupy Plaintiffs’ private property and threaten to 

arrest or fine Plaintiffs, their family members, or invitees on their private properties. 

29. The Sheriff, Walton County Code Enforcement, and South Walton Fire 

District continue to enter and occupy Plaintiffs’ private property and by threat of 

arrest and physical removal, prevent the Plaintiffs, their family members, or invitees 

from being able to enjoy their private properties. 

Count I – Violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause 

30. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1- 29 above. 

31. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as applicable to the 

County through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits 

“private property [from] be[ing] taken for public use, without just compensation.” 

32. Plaintiffs own certain beachfront property that the County and Sheriff 

have physically occupied through officials of the County, including Sheriff deputies, 

Walton County Code Enforcement and South Walton Fire District patrolling and 

occupying their private properties. 

33. The County and Sheriff, through threats of prosecution including fines 

of up to $500 and jail (up to 60 days), have physically prevented Plaintiffs from 

being able to use or even set foot in their own backyards. See § 775.083 (1)(e) and 

775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. 

34. On a daily basis, these County officials continue to enter and occupy 

Plaintiffs’ private properties and prevent Plaintiffs, their family members, or invitees 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 11 of 24
12

from being able to possess or physically occupy their own private properties. 

35. County officials, including those with the Sheriff’s Office, Walton 

County Code Enforcement, and South Walton Fire District have prevented Plaintiffs 

from fishing and swimming from their own properties and backyards. These County 

officials have declared the Gulf of Mexico waters closed to Plaintiffs which is in 

direct conflict with EO 20-20 and EO 20-19. In addition, the Plaintiffs have 

constitutionally protected littoral rights which includes the right to use the waters of 

the Gulf that have been taken by these County officials. 

36. The County and Sheriff, under color of state law, have physically 

appropriated Plaintiffs’ beachfront properties for public use without the payment of 

compensation to the Plaintiffs. 

37. The County and Sheriff’s physical appropriation of Plaintiffs’ 

beachfront properties violates the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

38. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court declare that the 

County’s Amended Ordinance is unconstitutional; declare the Amended Ordinance 

invalid; enjoin the County and Sheriff from enforcing the Amended Ordinance; 

award Plaintiffs just compensation for the temporary taking of their properties and 

award Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 12 of 24
13

Count II – Declaratory Judgment/Preemption 

39. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-29 above. 

40. The Amended Ordinance is invalid as it is superseded and preempted 

by the Governor’s EO 20-20. 

41. Governor DeSantis’s EO 20-19 and EO 20-20 state that persons shall 

limit “their movements and personal interactions outside of their home to only those 

necessary to obtain essential services or conduct essential activities.” See Exhibit 3 

at §1(B). In addition, EO 20-20 specifically preempts any local action or order 

inconsistent with the EOs: “This Order shall supersede any conflicting official action 

or order issued by local officials in response to COVID-19.” See Exhibit 4 at §1. 

42. Plaintiffs’ own private property which includes the beaches that make 

up their backyards and are part of their homes. The Amended Ordinance’s attempt 

to ban homeowners from a portion of their property or home directly conflicts with 

EO 20-19 and 20-20. Accordingly, the Amended Ordinance is invalid. 

43. EO 20-19 further defines “essential activities” to include “participating 

in recreational activities (consistent with social distancing guidelines) such as 

walking, biking, hiking, fishing, hunting, running, or swimming.” See Exhibit 3 at 

§3(A)(ii) (emphasis added). 

44. County officials, including those with the Sheriff’s Office, Walton 

County Code Enforcement, and South Walton Fire District have prevented Plaintiffs 

from walking, fishing, and swimming from their own properties and backyards. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 13 of 24
14

These County officials have also declared the Gulf of Mexico waters closed to 

Plaintiffs which is in direct conflict with EO 20-20 and 20-19. Moreover, the 

Plaintiffs have constitutionally protected littoral rights that these County officials 

have taken, including the right to use the waters of the Gulf. 

45. The Amended Ordinance and the County officials’ actions prohibiting 

Plaintiffs’ access to the Gulf of Mexico waters are invalid. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court declare that the 

County’s Amended Ordinance is invalid as being preempted by EO 20-19 and EO 

20-20 and enjoin the County and Sheriff from enforcing the Amended Ordinance. 

Count III – Violation of Florida’s Constitutional Right to Privacy

46. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-29 above. 

47. Florida’s constitutionally protected right to privacy provides “the right 

to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private 

life.” Fla. Const. art. 1, § 23. 

48. The County, Sheriff, and the Amended Ordinance are violating 

Plaintiffs’ right to privacy by preventing Plaintiffs from physically being able to 

occupy their own backyards, including by: 1) threats of prosecution, including fines 

of up to $500 and jail (up to 60 days), which physically prevent Plaintiffs from being 

able to use or even set foot in their own backyards, see § 775.083 (1)(e) and 

775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat.; and 2) physically occupying and patrolling Plaintiffs’ 

private properties. 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 14 of 24
15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court find that the County’s 

Amended Ordinance violates Plaintiffs’ right to privacy; declare that the County’s 

Amended Ordinance is unconstitutional; and enjoin the County and Sheriff from 

enforcing the Amended Ordinance. 

Count IV – Violation of Due Process Rights

49. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-29 above. 

50. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the 

County from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process 

of law” – both procedural and substantive due process of law. 

51. The Amended Ordinance fails to afford procedural and substantive due 

process. 

52. The Amended Ordinance is arbitrary and capricious. The Amended 

Ordinance purports to be designed to “prevent the spread of COVID-19” yet it has 

the opposite effect. The Amended Ordinance prevents the Plaintiffs, many of whom 

own residences along the beach, from utilizing their own backyards to quarantine or 

stay safe at home. The chances of a family or landowner catching or spreading 

COVID-19 is far less in his or her own private backyard (where no one else should 

be less they be trespassing) than traveling to the grocery store or hardware store or 

other essential business. 

53. In addition, recreating in one’s own private backyard to fish or swim, 

as specifically authorized as essential recreation by the Governor in EO 20-19 is far 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 15 of 24
16

safer that traveling somewhere else to recreate. 

54. Moreover, Plaintiffs have followed the CDC guidelines and never had 

a group of more than 10 people together. In addition, there is plenty of room for 

compliance with social distancing. In fact, one Plaintiff’s use of his privately-owned 

beach (i.e., backyard) on April 3, 2020 shows he is much further away from anyone 

than he would be even within his own house: 

55. The County’s Amended Ordinance would force family members into a 

confined space within a house rather than allow them to social distance and recreate 

in their sandy backyard. Or it forces them to public locations to recreate potentially 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 16 of 24
17

closer to many other persons that may have COVID-19. 

56. In reality, the purpose of the Amended Ordinance is to make 

enforcement easier for the County and its officials. It is easier if no one is allowed 

on the beach rather than enforcement officials having to distinguish between 

property owners and non-property owners. As such, the Amended Ordinance is 

arbitrary, capricious, and invalid. 

57. The County and Sheriff, through threats of prosecution including fines 

of up to $500 and jail (up to 60 days), have physically prevented Plaintiffs from 

being able to use or even set foot in their own backyards. See § 775.083 (1)(e) and 

775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. 

58. The County and Sheriff, under color of state law, are depriving 

Plaintiffs of life, liberty, and property, without procedural or substantive due process 

of law. 

59. The County’s Amended Ordinance violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

60. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs and expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court declare that the 

Amended Ordinance is unconstitutional; enjoin the County and Sheriff from 

enforcing the Amended Ordinance; and award Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. 

Count V – Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Seizure

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 17 of 24
18

61. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-29 above. 

62. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[t]he 

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 

unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated.” 

63. The Amended Ordinance violates Plaintiffs’ rights against 

unreasonable seizure of their real property. 

64. The Amended Ordinance is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. 

The Amended Ordinance purports to be designed to “prevent the spread of COVID19” yet it has the opposite effect. The Amended Ordinance prevents the Plaintiffs, 

many of whom own residences along the beach, from utilizing their own backyards 

to quarantine or stay safe at home. The chances of a family or landowner catching 

or spreading COVID-19 is far less in his or her own private backyard (where no one 

else should be less they be trespassing) than traveling to the grocery store or 

hardware store or other essential business. 

65. In addition, recreating in one’s own private backyard to fish or swim, 

as specifically authorized as essential recreation by the Governor in EO 20-19 is far 

safer that traveling somewhere else to recreate. 

66. Moreover, Plaintiffs have followed the CDC guidelines and never had 

a group of more than 10 people together. In addition, there is plenty of room for 

compliance with social distancing. In fact, one Plaintiff’s use of his privately-owned 

beach (i.e., backyard) on April 3, 2020 shows he is much further away from anyone 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 18 of 24
19

than he would be even within his own house: 

67. The County’s Amended Ordinance would force family members into a 

confined space within a house rather than allow them to social distance and recreate 

in their sandy backyard. Or it forces them to public locations to recreate potentially 

closer to many other persons that may have COVID-19. 

68. In reality, the purpose of the Amended Ordinance is to make 

enforcement easier for the County and its officials. It is easier if no one is allowed 

on the beach rather than enforcement officials having to distinguish between 

property owners and non-property owners. As such, the Amended Ordinance 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 19 of 24
20

constitutes an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiffs’ real property and is invalid. 

69. The County and Sheriff, through threats of prosecution including fines 

of up to $500 and jail (up to 60 days), have physically prevented Plaintiffs from 

being able to use or even set foot in their own backyards. See § 775.083 (1)(e) and 

775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. 

70. The County and Sheriff, under color of state law, have unreasonably 

and unlawfully seized the Plaintiffs private beach properties. 

71. The County’s Amended Ordinance violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the 

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

72. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs and expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court declare that the 

Amended Ordinance is unconstitutional; enjoin the County and Sheriff from 

enforcing the Amended Ordinance; and award Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. 

Count VI – Declaratory Judgment/Lack of Statutory Authority 

73. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-29 above. 

74. The Amended Ordinance is invalid as Walton County lacks authority 

to commandeer property in response to a declared emergency. 

75. Direct authority to establish ordinary police regulations belongs to the 

Legislature. State ex rel. Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918) (“A 

direct exercise by the Legislature of the police power is in accordance with 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 20 of 24
21

immemorial governmental usage. But the subject-matter may be such that only a 

general scheme or policy can with advantage be laid down by the Legislature; and 

the working out in detail of the policy indicated may be left to the discretion of other 

officers or tribunals.”). Thus, the State’s political subdivisions “may only exercise 

such police powers as have been delegated to them by the legislature, and the 

legislature has the power to withhold from, or delegate to, municipalities the exercise 

of such police powers as it may deem wise and expedient to give them.” 12A Fla. 

Jur. Counties and Municipal Corporations § 246 

76. To address natural, technological, or manmade disasters, the Florida 

Legislature has promulgated the State Emergency Management Act, Chapter 252, 

Part I, Florida Statutes (2020) (the “Act”). § 252.32(1), Fla. Stat. (declaring the 

policy and purpose of the Act). Through the Act, the Legislature has specifically 

delegated certain powers and authority to the Governor and the State’s political 

subdivisions related to the protection of public peace, health, and safety in the face 

of an emergency. §§ 252.36; 252.38, Fla. Stat. Among the powers the Legislature 

specifically delegated to the Governor is the authority to commandeer or utilize 

private property if found necessary to cope with an emergency. § 252.36(5), Fla. 

Stat. No such police power has been delegated to the state’s political subdivisions 

in the face of any emergency. See generally § 252.38, Fla. Stat. (specifying the 

emergency management powers delegated to the state’s political subdivisions). 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 21 of 24
22

77. The Act prescribes with particularity that it is the Governor who has the 

authority to commandeer private property in the face of a declared emergency. 

The absence of any such grant indicates the Legislature’s intent that such power has 

not been granted to political subdivisions. See Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 83-59 (1983) 

(concluding county lacked authority to commandeer private property to cope with a 

declared state of emergency). 

78. The Amended Ordinance commandeers Plaintiffs’ private property in 

response to the declared COVID-19 emergency. Walton County lacks any 

delegation to exercise such power. As such, Walton County lacks authority to 

commandeer privately owned property to address any state of emergency due to 

COVID-19 and its Amended Ordinance is void and must be stricken. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court declare that the 

County’s Amended Ordinance exceeds the County’s legislatively delegated power 

and authority to respond to the declared COVID-19 emergency and enjoin the 

County and Sheriff from enforcing the Amended Ordinance. 

Relief Requested 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 

A. Declare that the Amended Ordinance constitutes a temporary taking of 

Plaintiffs’ property under the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Plaintiffs are 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 22 of 24
23

entitled to just compensation and attorney fees and costs from the County and 

Sheriff; 

B. Enjoin enforcement of the Amended Ordinance by Walton County and 

the Sheriff; 

C. Declare that the Amended Ordinance is invalid because it is conflicts 

with EO 20-19 and 20-20 and is preempted; 

D. Declare that the Amended Ordinance is invalid because it violates 

Plaintiffs’ right to privacy; 

E. Declare that the Amended Ordinance is invalid because it violates 

Plaintiffs’ due process rights; 

F. Declare that the Amended Ordinance is invalid because it violates the 

Plaintiffs’ rights to be secure against unreasonable seizures under the Fourth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 

G. Declare that the Amended Ordinance is invalid because it exceeds 

Walton County’s legislatively delegated authority; 

H. Award Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1988 to be paid by the County and Sheriff; and 

G. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem proper. 

 

 

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 23 of 24
24

 Respectfully submitted by: 

 /s/ D. Kent Safriet 

 D. Kent Safriet (FBN 174939) 

Joseph A. Brown (FBN 0025765) 

Edward M. Wenger (FBN 85568)

 Kristen C. Diot (FBN 0118625) 

 HOPPING GREEN & SAMS, P.A. 

 119 South Monroe St., Suite 300 

 Tallahassee, FL 32301-1529 

 (850) 222-7500 / (850) 224-8551 (Fax) 

 kents@hgslaw.com 

 josephb@hgslaw.com 

edw@hgslaw.com 

kristend@hgslaw.com

 

 Dated: April 6, 2020 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 04/06/20 Page 24 of 24