FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T SEPT EMBER 28, 2 011 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 03 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 09 23 -SDM- EAJ ANTHONYCATRON, JO ANNE REYNOLDS, W ILLIAM SHUMATE, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , RAYMOND YOUNG, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , CHARLES R. HARGIS, etal., Pl ai nt iff s, ve rs us CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 11 )Befo re EDMONDSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es , andHODGES, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. EDMONDSON, Circ ui t J ud ge : Inth is Sect io n 1 98 3 c as e, fo urho m el es s p la in ti ffs ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity

of t wo o rd in an ces inth e Ci ty Cod e o f St . Pet ers bu rg , Flo rid a (the

“ Ci ty”) andof t he Cit y ’s enf or cem en t o f th e o rd in an ces . One ord in an ce, Sec ti on 20 -3 0 (o r, th e “ tre sp as s o rd in an ce”) , aut ho riz es cert ai n c ity

ag en ts to is su e a t em

po rary tres pa ss warn in g fo r sp eci fic cit y lan d -- in effe ct , an e xc lu si on fro m th e p ro pe rty -- onwhi chth e ag en t d et erm in edth atth e warn in g re ci pi en t h ad“ vi ol at e[d ]” city or s ta te law. Th e o th er o rd in an ce, Sec ti on 8- 32 1 (o r, th e “ st or ag e o rd in an ce”) , pro hi bi ts st or ag e o f pe rs on al pro pe rty oncit y landsu chas p ark s an d ri gh ts -o f-way. The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d a ll of P la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s; we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s, ex cep t we v acat e p artof t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng ab ou t the tre sp as s o rd in an ce. Pl ai nt iff s h av e st at edcla im s o n t he is su es of p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s u nd er the Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n a ndon th ei r rig htto in tra st at e tr av el un de r th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on .

Honora ble Wm. Terre ll Hodge s, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of F lorida, * sitti ngby designation. 2I.

Thi s ca se in vo lv es a co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the cit y

of S t. Pe te rs bu rg , Flo rid a, by fo urho m el es s re si de nt s: Antho ny Catro n, Ra ym on d Yo un g, J o An ne Reynol ds , an d Wil li am

Shum at e (“ Pl ai nt iff

s” ). Pla in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t two ci ty ord in an ces , Sect io ns 20 -3 0 a nd8-3 21 , andth e Ci ty’ s m an ne r of en fo rcem en t fo r th es e or di na nc es , vi ol at e Pl ai nt iff s’ rig ht s u nd er the Uni te d S ta te s an d F lo rid a co ns ti tu ti on s. The Cit y ha s ci te d, arres te d, o r co nf is cat edpro pe rty from

eachof P la in ti ffs fo r vi ol at in g t he tre sp as s o rd in an ce, the st or ag e o rd in an ce, o r bo th . Plai nt iff s fi le d su itindi stric t co urt s eek in g d ecl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d wi th pre jud ic e Pl ai nt iff

s’ am en de d c om

pl ai nt . On ap pe al , Pla in ti ffs arg ue th atth e tr es pa ss ord in an ce -- bo th onit s fa ce an d in pra ct ic e -- v io la te s the Due P ro ces s C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, the Fi rs t Am en dm en t o ve rb read th do ctrin e, an d t he rig htto in tra st at e tr av el un de r th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on . Plai nt iff s ar gu e th atth e st or ag e o rd in an ce i s v oi d fo r va gu en es s u nd er the Due P ro ces s C laus e.

3II.

W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 1 2( b) (6 ). Red landCo rp ., Inc . v. Ban k o f Am . Cor p., 5 68 F.3d 12 32 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A “ co m pl ai ntm us t co nt ai n s uf

fic ie ntfactua l m atte r, acce pt edas t ru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .’ ” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct. 19 37 , 19 49 (20 09 ) (quo ti ng Bel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 95 5, 1 97 4 (2 00 7) ). Sta ti ng a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f requi res pl ead in g “ factua l co nt en t tha t al lo ws the co urt t o draw the reas on ab le in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le for th e m is co nduc t al le ge d” : “ m or e th ana sh eer p os si bi li ty tha t a d efen da ntha s ac te d un lawfu ll y .” Id . III.

Pl ai nt iff s’ firs t thr ee ar gu m en ts on ap pe al are ab ou t Se ct io n 2 0- 30 , th e tre sp as s o rd in an ce. Bri efl y st at ed , th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce au th or iz es cert ai n c ity em pl oyees, i nc lu di ng po li ce o ffi cers , to is su e a “ tre sp as s warni ng ,” whi chwarn s pe rs on s o n p ub li c p ro pe rty to d ep artfro m th atpro pe rty andno t t o re tu rn . 4The tre sp as s o rd in an ce g iv es auth or ity to is su e a tres pa ss warn in g fo r publ ic pr op erty inth ree i ns tanc es : (1 ) “ ci ty em pl oyees o r of

fic ia ls , or the ir d es ig ne es , ha vi ng co nt ro l o ve r a fac il ity , bu il di ng , or o ut do orarea , in cl ud in g m un ic ip al pa rk s” m ay

is su e a tres pa ss warn in g t o “ an y in di vi du al who vi ol at es an y cit y or di na nc e, ru le or r eg ul at io n, o r st at e la w or l awfu l d ire ct iv e o f a ci ty em pl oyee or of fic ia l” forth e p ub li c p ro pe rty where th e v io la ti on oc cu rred , (2) a po li ce o ffi cer m ay is su e a tres pa ss warn in g, wh enth e ci ty offi ci al inco nt ro l o f th e p ert in en t ci ty pr op erty is un av ai labl e, to “ an y

in di vi du al who vi ol at es an y cit y ord in an ce o r st at e law” fo r th e p ub li c p ro pe rty where th e v io la ti onoc cu rredbu t o nl y if “ th e p ol ic e of fic er [h as ] rece iv e[d ] th e ap pr ov al of t he off ic er’s i m m ed ia te supe rv is or

forth e is su an ce o f th e tr es pa ss warn in g,” an d (3 ) an y cit y em pl oyee oroff

ic ia l h as au th or ity “ to is su e a tres pa ss warn in g t o a ny pers on foran y lawf ul reas on foran y ci ty pro pe rty . . . , whenne ces sa ry or app ro pr ia te inth e so le di sc ret io n o f th e ci ty em pl oyee oroff

ic ia l.” § § 2 0- 30 (a)- (b ), (g ). On i ts face , th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce do es no t co ve r publ ic rig ht s- of -way . Sect io n 2 0- 30 (a)- (b ). But Pl ai nt iff s al le ge th atth e Ci ty enfo rces th e o rd in an ce “ cu rb to curb ” -- o n p ub li c si de walk s an d b us sh el te rs lo cat edon publ ic si de walk s. Afte r a p ers on ha s re cei ve d atre sp as s warni ng , if the pe rs on is fou ndon th e pe rti ne ntpubl ic pro pe rty “ in vi ol at io n o f a tres pa ss warn in g [h e] m ay be arre st ed 5fo r tr es pa ss in g.” Sect io n 2 0- 30 (e). Sect io n 2 0- 30 requi res tre sp as s warni ng s -- as 1 ex cl us io ns -- to be fora li mit edti m e. Fo r fi rs t-t im e v io la ti on s, the tre sp as swarn in g p eri odm ay

no t ex ceedon e y ear; for

all ot he r vi ol at io ns , th e tr es pa ss warn in g p eri odm ay

no t ex ceedtwo y ears . Sect io n 2 0- 30 (c). A per so n wh o h as be enis su eda tr es pa ss warn in g (t he “warn in g- reci pi en t” ) m ay ap pl y to ex erci se lawf

ul ly that p ers on ’s Firs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts on th e ci ty pr op erty th atis th e subjec t o f th e tr es pa ss warn in g, an d t he city off ic ia l o r em pl oyee inco nt ro l o f th e p ro pe rty “ sh al l n ot[] un reas on ab ly den [y ]” the warn in g- reci pi en t au th or iz at io n “ to en te r th e p ro pe rty or p rem is es to ex erci se hi s orhe r Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts or t o c on du ctm un ic ip al bu si ne ss .” Sect io n 2 0- 30 (f). A cop y of the tre sp as s warni ng -- itis a writ in g -- is su edpu rs uantto th e tre sp as s o rd in an ce m

us t b e p ro vi de d t o t he warn in g- reci pi en t, b utno form al

Florida ’s trespa ss statute for prope rty other than a

structureor conve yanceprovides: 1 A person who, without being authorized, l i ce n s ed , or invited, willfully enter s upon or rema ins in any proper

ty other than a structure or conveyance . . . [a] s to which notice ag ainst entering or rema ining is g iven, either by actua l communication to the offe nder or by posting, fenc ing, or

cultivation. . . commits the off ense of trespass on property

. . . . F L A . S T A T . AN N . § 810.09. 6pr oc edur es ha ve be ensetou t b y whi chth e rec ip ie ntof atre sp as s warni ng m ay ch al le ng e th e b as is of the warn in g o r th e te rm s o f th e warn in g. Se ct io n 2 0- 30 (d ). 2 A.

Pl ai nt iff s fi rs t ar gu e th atth e tr es pa ss ord in an ce i s u nc on st itut io na l fa ci al ly, an d a s ap pl ie d t o P la in ti ffs , invi ol at io n o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t. 3 The Du e Pro ces s C laus e requi res “ th ata de pr iv at io n o f li fe, l ib erty or pr op erty ‘ be pre ced edby not ic e an d o pp ortuni ty for h eari ng ap pr op ria te to th e na tu re o f th e cas e.’” Clev el an d B d. o f Edu c. v. Lo ud erm il l, 1 05 S.Ct . 14 87 , 14 93 (1 98 5) (qu ot in g M ul lane v. Ce nt . Hano ve r Ban k & Trus t Co ., 70 S. Ct. 6 52 , 65 6 (1 95 0) ). The g ov ern m en t m us t p ro vi de th e requi redno ti ce an d o pp ortu ni ty for a he ari ng “ ata m ean in gf

ul ti m e an d i n am ean in gf ul m an ne r,” al th ou gh th e n ot ic e an d h eari ng m ay

be po stpo ne d u nt il aft er the de pr iv at io n h as oc curred . See Mat he ws v . Eldrid ge , 96 S. Ct. 8 93 , 90 2 (1 97 6) . The tre spass war

ning f orm attac hed to the City

Police Depa

rtment’s instructional orde r on 2 trespassingrea ds, in part, this way : “You ar e her eby notified that your pre sence is no longe r welcome . . . on the [muni cipal] property /premises desc ribed be low, unless such prohibition is resc inded in writingby

the City officia l havingcontrol over the pre mises.” Plaintiffs, in what they

term a “ fac ial” cha lleng e, do not attac k only the trespa ss ordinancebut 3 alleg e also that the City ’s ac tual manner of enf orce ment g oes beyond the plain words of the ordinanc e. 7A Sect io n 1 98 3 p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m requi res a pl ai nt iff

to pro ve th ree e le m en ts : “ (1 ) a d ep riv at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al ly-pro te ct edli be rty or pr op erty in te res t; (2) st at e act io n; an d (3 ) co ns ti tu ti on al ly-in ad equa te pro ces s.” Gray de n v . Rho de s, 3 45 F.3d12 25 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Pl ai nt iff s h av e a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edli be rty int eres t t o b e inpa rk s o r on ot he r ci ty lan ds of t he ir c ho os in g t ha t ar e o pe n t o t he publ ic ge ne ral ly. Cit y of Ch ic ag o v . Mo ral es , 11 9 S .Ct. 1 84 9, 1 85 8 (1 99 9) (pl ur al ity op in io n) (ci ta ti on s om itte d) (“ [A]n in di vi du al 's d eci si on to rem ai n i n apubl ic pl ace o f hi s ch oi ce i s as m uc h apa rt o f hi s l ib erty

as t he free do m

of m ov em en t i ns id e fro nt ie rs th atis ‘ a pa rt o f ou r he rit ag e,’ or th e ri gh t t o m ov e ‘to wh at so ev er p la ce o ne 's o wn in cl in at io n m ay

di rect .’ ”) Whethe r orno t thi s i nt eres t i s a f un da m en ta l ri gh t fo r th e p ur po se of s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s, Do e v . Cit y of Laf ay et te , 37 7 F .3d75 7, 77 0- 73 (7t h C ir. 2 00 4) , a pe rs on m ay for fei t thi s l ib erty

rig htby tres pa ss or o th er vi ol at io n o f la w, Chu rch v. Ci ty of Hun ts vi ll e, 30 F.3d13 32 , 13 45 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). Bu t the in it ia l que st io n we d eci de is no t wh ethe r Pl ai nt iff s h av e fo rfei te d a li be rty int eres t b y

tre sp as s o r ot he r vi ol at io n o f la w, bu t wh atin te res t Pl ai nt iff s al le ge th ey

po ss es se d (a ndth enha ve be ende pr iv edof) inth e fi rs t p la ce. 4 The City -- a rguing that Plainti ffs do not have a right to trespass on public prope rty -- 4 misunderstands the deprivation alleg ed her e. B efor e re ceiving a tre spass war

ning, thewar

ningrec ipient is, by

definition, not trespassing . The de privation ac complished by the issuance of a 8Pl ai nt iff s’ factua l al le ga ti on s tha t the Cit y pro hi bi te d t he m

fro m be in g i n ci ty park s (i n g en eral , andinW il li am s Parksp eci fic al ly), on p ub li c si de walk s, an d atbu s s he lt ers lo cat edon publ ic si de walk s l eadus to co nc lu de th at“ th ere i s m or e th ana sh eer p os si bi li ty” th atPla in ti ffs ha ve be ende pr iv edof aco ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect edli be rty int eres t. Cf. Iqba l, 1 29 S. Ct. at19 49 . Plai nt iff s h av e su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d t ha t the Cit y

ha s d ep riv edth em

of l ib erty in te res ts intwo way s, b y 1) en fo rci ng th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce t o p ro hi bi t the m fro m ha vi ng acce ss to a sp eci fic pa rk(W il li am s Park ) as ord in ari ly use d b y th e p ub li c; an d 2 ) carry in g o uta po li cy of en fo rci ng th e o rd in an ce t o p ro hi bi t the ir u se of a ll pa rk s i n t he Cit y op ento th e publ ic ge ne ral ly. Thes e al le ga ti on s s at is fy th e fi rs t el em en t fo r a p ro cedur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m . 5 Andth e p art ie s d o n otdi sp ut e th atst at e act io n i s p res en t. See Mo ne ll v. Dep ’t of So c. Serv s., 9 8 S . Ct. 2 01 8, 2 03 5 (1 97 8) . There fo re, due pro ces s i s ne ed ed , andwe m

us t d et erm in e whe th er Se ct io n 2 0- 30 pro vi de s the

trespass wa

rningthere fore takes plac e bef ore a ny trespass - - or supposed “ right to trespass” -- e x ists. This right, to use a city

park or parks, of course , is not absolute. We decide today only that a 5 resident of

St. P eter sburghas some fe dera l right to use St. P eter sburgparks unde r the ordina ry conditions in which these par ks are made available to the g ener al public. St. Petersburgresidents do not have a

constitutional right to use public pa rks under all conditions and at all times. 9co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te pro ces s tha t i s due . See Mo ris se y v. Br ewer, 9 2 S .Ct. 25 93 , 26 00 (19 72 ). To d et erm in e whe th er the ord in an ce s at is fie s the co ns ti tu ti on al requi rem en t of pro cedur al du e p ro ces s, we ap pl y th e Ma th ews ba la nc in g t es t: id en ti fic at io n o f th e sp eci fic di ct at es of due pro ces s g en eral ly requ ire s co ns id erat io n o f th ree d is ti nc t fa ct or s: Fir st , th e p riv at e in te res t tha t wil l b e aff

ect edby the off

ic ia l ac ti on ; s eco nd , th e ri skof a n e rro ne ou s de pr iv at io n o f su chin te res t thr ou ghth e p ro cedur es us ed , andth e pr ob ab le va lu e, if

any , of a dd it io na l o r subs ti tu te pro cedur al sa feg ua rd s; an d fi na ll y , th e Gov ern m en t’s i nt eres t, i nc lu di ng th e func ti on in vo lv edan d t he fis cal an d a dm in is tra ti ve bu rd en s tha t the ad di ti on al or s ub st itut e p ro cedur al requi rem en t wo ul d e nt ai l. 96 S. Ct. at90 3. Bec au se Pla in ti ffs po ss es s a p riv at e li be rty int eres t i n l awfu ll y vi si ti ng cit y pr op erty th atis op ento th e p ub li c (an in te res t o f whi chPla in ti ffs wil l b e d ep riv ed by the is su an ce o f a tres pa ss warn in g) , th e fi rs t el em en t o f th e Ma th ews tes t weig hs inPla in ti ffs ’ fav or . Turn in g t o t he th irdMathe ws el em en t, the Cit y ’s in te res t i n d is co ur ag in g un lawfu l ac ti vi ty andinm ai nt ai ni ng a sa fe an d o rd erl y en vi ro nm en t o n i ts pr op erty is subs tant ia l. See Fir stVagabo nd s C hurch of Go d v . Cit y of Orl an do , 63 8 F .3d75 6, 7 62 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (enba nc ). In a dd it io n, we ac cep t -- ev en witho utth e ai d o f a fac tu al reco rd-- th atso m e ex pe ns e an d b ur de n wo ul d

10pr ob ab ly aris e as a res ul t o f ad di ti on al pro cedur es to all ow ch al le ng es to th e

rece ip t o f a tres pa ss warn in g. Th is ele m en t wei gh s i n the Cit y ’s fav or . Last , con si de rin g the sec on d M athe ws el em en t, we co nc lu de th atth is el em en t wei gh s h eav il y

inPla in ti ffs ’ fav or . The tres pa ss ord in an ce caus es a subs tant ia l ri skof e rro ne ou s d ep riv at io n o f li be rty becaus e itis see min gl y eas y for th e Ci ty -- th ro ug h ava rie ty of ag en ts -- to is su e a tres pa ss warn in g a ndbe cau se no pro cedur e is pro vi de d fo r th e rec ip ie ntof atre sp as s warni ng to ch al le ng e th e warn in g o r fo r th e warn in g t o b e res ci nd ed . Sect io n 2 0- 30 pro vi de s a l otof d is cret io n t o m an y di ffer en t ci ty agen ts to is su e tr es pa ss warn in gs fora wid e ran ge of a ct s. Giv enth atth es e warn in gs op erat e li ke so m e k in d o f in jun ct io n, thi s s itua ti on crea te s a s ub st an ti al ris k o f erro ne ou s d ep riv at io n o f li be rty. Secti on 20 -3 0 g iv es m an y di ffer en t ag en ts au th or ity to is su e a tres pa ss warn in g: warn in gs canbe is su edby pol ic e o ffi cers ,

“ ci ty em pl oyees o r of

fic ia ls . . . ha vi ng co nt ro l o ve r” a p art ic ul ar ci ty pro pe rty, pl us ev enth e d es ig ne es of c ity em pl oyees. § § 2 0- 30 (a)-( b) . In ad di ti on , a wid e ran ge of a ct s co ul d c on st itut e a v io la ti on of “ an y cit y ord in an ce, ru le or r eg ul at io n, orst at e law or l awfu l d ire ct iv e o f a ci ty em pl oyee oroff

ic ia l” an d m ig htres ul t i n a tre sp as s warni ng : p ub li c in de cen cy , li tt eri ng , andev endi so be y in g t he lawf ul di rect io ns (fo r ex am

pl e, do no t ru n a ro un d t he po ol ) of a li feg ua rdina publ ic po ol 11wou ldsee m in gl y all be in cl ud edinth atde sc rip ti on . Furthe rm or e, Sect io n 2 0- 30 pr ov id es no gu id an ce t o c ity off ic ia ls (orth ei r de si gn ees ) orpo li ce o ffi cers in ex erci si ng th ei r di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er a p ers on ha s ac tu al ly comm it te d a vi ol at io n t ha t p erm it s i ss ua nc e o f a tres pa ss warn in g: th is lac k o f sp eci fic ity su gg es ts th atwhen ev er an au th or iz edcit y em pl oyee th in ks a vi ol at io n h as oc cu rred , he m ay

is su e a tres pa ss warn in g. 6 The eas e wit h wh ic h tres pa ss warn in gs m ay be is su edis pa rti cu la rly pr ob le m at ic he re b ecau se th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce p ro vi de s n o p ro cedur al m ean s fo r a warn in g- reci pi en t t o c ha ll en ge th e warn in g. Anev id en t p ro ces s fo r su ch ch al le ng es ha s s ig ni fic an t v al ue inav oi di ng m is ta ke s. Ev enif i t i s i m pr act ic al for th e Ci ty to p ro vi de a pr e-warni ng he ari ng to “ as su re tha t the re ar e rea so nabl e gr ou nd s t o s up po rt” th e tr es pa ss warn in g, the Cit y m us t p ro vi de so m e po st -d ep riv at io n p ro cedur e to sat is fy th e requi rem en ts of the Due P ro ces s C laus e. See Gi lb ertv. Ho m ar, 1 17 S.Ct . 18 07 , 18 13 -1 4 (1 99 7) . The Cit y arg ue s an d t he di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the tre sp as s o rd in an ce affo rd s ad equa te pro cedur al du e p ro ces s b ecau se if awarn in g- reci pi en t l at er vi ol at es th e warn in g a ndis ul ti m at el y ch arg edwith m is de m ean ortre sp as s (a

And the text of the ordinance seems not to rule out issuance of a tre spass war ning ba sed on a 6 violation that the pertinent city ag ent fa iled to witness personally .

12vi ol at io n o f st at e, no t ci ty law) th e warn in g- reci pi en t wi ll be ab le to ch al le ng e th e

va li di ty of th e tr es pa ss ch arg e inst at e co urt. W e are no t p ers ua de d t ha t thi s s ta te forum affo rd s s uf

fic ie ntpro cedur al pr ot ect io ns . Thes e tr es pa ss warn in gs are i nt en de d t o s erv e in st an tl y as s om e k in d of res tra in in g i nju nc ti on . The p ro ces s av ai labl e inst at e co urt, as a m at te r of cri m in al pro cedur e, to co nt es t a s ta te tre sp as s ch arg e -- i f th e tr es pa ss warn in g la te r is no t h eed ed-- is be si de th e p oi nt . A chal le ng e to a tr es pa ss ch ar ge inst at e co urt d oe s n otequa l a c ha ll en ge to th e v al id ity of atre sp as s wa rn in g , esp eci al ly of th e warn in g’s i ss ua nc e atth e o ut se t: th es e two di ffer en t l eg al qu es ti on s (wa s a tre sp as s warni ng rig ht ly due pe r th e ci ty ord in an ce; was the st at e tr es pa ss law vi ol at ed ) requi re ex am in at io n o f di ffer en t ac ts an d d iff eren t ci rcu m st an ces . Not hi ng pre se nt edto us sh ows th ata st at e co urt m us t ev al ua te th e un de rlyin g c irc um st an ces th atsupp os ed ly ledto a tr es pa ss warn in g t o h ol d a pe rs on cri m in al ly resp on si bl e fo r th e actof e ntry on pro pe rty tha t g av e ri se to th e la te r tr es pa ss ch arg e. Bes id es , eve n i f a Fl or id a co urt ac qu it te d t he warn in g- 7

The F lorida trespa ss statute contains no re quirement that “ notice ag ainst enteringor re maining” 7 be rightful, authorized, or valid. F L A . S T A T . AN N . § 810.09; see a lso id. at § 810.011 (no definition of “notice ”). The trespass statute ha s four sepa rate elements: “1) wilfully entering upon or re maining in a

ny proper ty ; 2) other than a

structure or a c onveyance ; 3) without being authorized, licensed or

invited; 4) where notice ag ainst enteringor re maining is g iven either by actua l communication to the offe nder or by posting, fe ncingor cultivation.” Smith v. S tate, 778 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 2d D ist. Ct . App. 2000). 13reci pi en t o f th e st at e tr es pa ss ch arg e, th atth e st at e co urt’s d eci si on , as am at te r of

law, wou ldva cat e a tres pa ss warn in g i ss ue d b y th e Ci ty, a d iff

eren t p ol it ic al en ti ty, is no t o bv io us . 8 The way th e Ci ty has all eg ed ly app li edSect io n 2 0- 30 ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff s i n th is cas e il lu st rat es so m e o f th e p ro bl em s p os edby the ab se nc e o f m un ic ip al rev ie w. In 2 00 6 apo li ce o ffi cer i ss ue d C atro n atre sp as s warni ng for“ al l o f W il li am s Pa rk ” an d “ al l [C ]ity pa rk s,” wh ic h wo ul d re m ai n i n e ffec t

“pe rm an en tl y .” Thi s warni ng is anex am pl e o f a tres pa ss warn in g n otau th or iz ed by Secti on 20 -3 0, wh ic h aut ho riz es a warn in g app lying on ly to the “ sp eci fic pr op erty wher e th e v io lati on oc cu rred ” fo r a l im it edti m e. Bu t as th e tr es pa ss or di na nc e is curren tl y

writ te n, Ca tro n h as be enpro vi de d b y th e Ci ty w ith n o way to co nt es t the tre sp as s warni ng or a t l eas t the sco pe of t he warn in g. Ca tro n’s o nl y The tre spass war

ning states that the wa

rning -re cipient is "he reby notified that [the 8 war ning- rec ipient's] prese nce is no long er w elcome . . . on the proper ty /premises desc ribed . . . unless such prohibition is rescinded in writing by the City officia l havingcontrol over the premises." The City

and the district cour

t point to the languag e in the tre spass war ning f orm, which implies that a trespa ss warningcan be "r escinde d in writing by the City officia l having control over

the pre mises." The sug g estion that a trespa ss warning-- in some unspec ified circ umstance - - ca

n be re scinded doe s not establish (or g ive notice) that a proc edure exis ts for a war ning- rec ipient to seek the re scission. For e x ample, nothingin the ordinanc e or in the languag e of the trespass wa rningobligates anyone on beha lf of the City to list en, eve n for a moment, to a single word fr om a war ning- rec ipient who wishes to call into question the corr ectne ss of the wa

rning ' s issuance - - eve n afte r the wa rninghas bee n issued. And the "r escinde d in writing" phrase is entirely consistent with the simple idea of mer cy or cle mency

by grac e on the pa

rt of a c ity

officia l brought about by the offic ial' s own cha

ng e of mind, with no prompting f

rom or no mea

ningf ul opportunity

to contribute information from the war ning- rec ipient: this kind of resc ission is disconnec ted from the right of due proc ess. 14op ti on s, i t s eem s, ar e to rel in qu is h h is rig htto vi si t ci ty park s al to ge th er o r to

vi ol at e th e tr es pa ss warn in g a ndsubjec t h im se lf t o acri m in al pro se cuti on for tre sp as s b y

a di ffer en t s ov erei gn(th e st at e) o r to bri ng a co urt ac ti on ch al le ng in g th e en ti re s ch em e. W e co nc lu de th atPla in ti ffs ha ve st at eda cl ai m , faci al ly andas- ap pl ie d, un de r th e Due Pro ces s C laus e: Sect io n 2 0- 30 lac ks co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te pr oc edur al pro te ct io ns as t he ord in an ce i s p res en tl y writte n a ndall eg ed ly en fo rced . B.

Pl ai nt iff s n ex t ar gu e th atth ey , inth e li gh t o f th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, h av e st at eda cl ai m

forrel ie f th atSect io n 2 0- 30 is faci al ly unc on st itut io na l an d subs tant ia ll y

ov erb ro ad .

“ [A] party

[m ay ] ch al le ng e anord in an ce u nd er the ov erb readthdo ctrin e in cas es wher e ev ery ap pl ic at io n c reat es anim pe rm is si bl e ri skof s up pr es si on of id eas , su chas a n o rd in an ce tha t d el eg at es ov erl y bro addi sc ret io n t o t he de ci si on m ak er . . . .” Fors yth Cn ty. v. Nat io na li stMo ve m en t, 1 12 S. Ct. 2 39 5,

1524 01 (19 92 ). W e m us t k eep inm in d t ha t i nv al id at in g alaw fo r ov erb read th is

“ st ro ng m ed ic in e.” Vir gi ni a v . Hick s, 1 23 S.Ct . 21 91 , 21 99 (20 03 ). Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d t he tre sp as s o rd in an ce i s o ve rb ro adinth e d is cret io n i t gi ve s ci ty em

pl oyees t o i ss ue tre sp as s warni ng s, warn in gs whi chba n a cces s t o qu in te ss en ti al publ ic for a uni qu el y de di cat edto ex pr es si ve act iv it ie s. Pla in ti ffs 9 al le ge no fact s t o s up po rt t hi s at ta ck -o n- ex pr es si on arg um en t, b utjus t s etou t the wor ds of t he tre sp as s o rd in an ce i ns te ad . This reci ta ti on of S ect io n 2 0- 30 do es no t supp ort an in fere nc e th atth e tr es pa ss “ no ti ce wo ul d e ve n b e g iv ento an y on e en ga ge d i n c on st itut io na ll y pro te ct edsp eech .” Hick s, 1 23 S.Ct . at 2 19 8. A ris k o f erro ne ou s en fo rcem en t o f Sec ti on 20 -3 0 d oe s ex is t an d s om e ri sk of supp res si on of s pe ech intra di ti on al publ ic for a co ul d t he refo re p os si bl y ex is t, gi ve n t he bro addi sc ret io n c ity ag en ts po ss es s i n e nf

or ci ng th e o rd in an ce. See Fo rs yth Cn ty., 11 2 S . Ct. at24 01 . Butth e fac ts all eg eddo no t p laus ib ly sug ge st an“ imp ermis si bl e ris k o f supp res si on of i de as ” in“ ever y ap pl ic at io n” of the Plaintiffs also argue the tre spass ordinanc e is overbr oad in the discre tion it gives city officia ls to 9 grant or de ny

permission to warning -re cipients who later wish to ex erc ise their F irst Amendment rights. W e suspec t that this First Amendment exception may suffe r from the same proble ms of too much discretion and insuff icient proc edura l due proc ess that infec t the ordinanc e in g ener al. But, g iven our re solution of Pl aintiffs’ ove rbre adth claim, we need not r ule on the exception specific ally . J ust as the Supreme Court did in Hicks, “e ven assuminginvalidity of” the First Amendment exception that re quires adva nce pe rmission from a city officia l with broad discretion, we conclude that Plaintiffs have not alleg ed fa cts to support a cla im that the “trespa ss policy as a whole prohibits a ‘substantial’ amount of protecte d speec h in relation to its many leg itimate applications.” Hic ks, 123 S.Ct . at 2199. 16or di na nc e. See i d. (e m ph as is ad de d) . In thi s i ns ta nc e, “ whate ve r ov erb read th m ay ex is t s ho ul d b e cu redth ro ug h” as- ap pl ie d l it ig at io n i n “ factsi tu at io ns to whi ch [th e o rd in an ce’s] san ct io ns . . . m ay no t [c on st itut io na ll y ] be ap pl ie d.” Bro adric k v. Ok laho m a, 93 S.Ct . 29 08 , 29 18 (19 73 ). Pl ai nt iff s h av e st at edno cla im

forth e ex tra or di na ril y

rare ov erb read th in va li da ti on th ey

see k.

C.

Thi rd , Pla in ti ffs arg ue th atth ey ha ve st at eda cl ai m

forrel ie f fo r vi ol at io n o f Pl ai nt iff s’ rig htto in tra st at e tr av el an d fr eed om of m ov em en t u nd er the Flo rid a Co ns ti tu ti on : Pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d tha t the Cit y ’s cus to m s an d p ract ic es tak en pu rs ua ntto th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce b ur de n t he ir r ig htto in tra st at e tr av el . Pl ai nt iff s’ all eg at io ns pl au si bl y

su gg es t tha t the Cit y ’s pra ct ic e o f en fo rci ng th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce l im it s the ir p ro te ct edfree do m to tra ve l i nt ras ta te . The 1 0 Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re co gn iz es , un de r it s s ta te co ns ti tu ti on , a fund am en ta l ri gh t

In their ame nded complaint, Plaintiffs alleg ed that the City ’s enf orce ment of a va

riety of 1 0 policies and ordina

nces bur dens Plaintiffs’ right to intrastate trave l under the F lorida Constitution. On appea l, Plainti ffs limit their arg ument about their a lleg ed right to intrastate trave l to a challeng e of the City ’s manner of enf orce ment of the tre spass ordinanc e. 17to in tra st at e tr av el . Stat e v . J.P., 9 07 So . 2d11 01 , 11 13 (Fl a. 20 04 ); s ee F LA .

C O N S T . art . I, § 2 . Of de ci si ve im

po rtanc e, Pl ai nt iff

s al le ge th atth e Ci ty “ en fo rc[e s] th e tre sp as s l aws to pro hi bi t Pl ai nt iff s . . . fro m

be in g p res en t o n p ub li c si de walk s su rro un di ng publ ic park s [a nd ] wait in g fo r bu se s atbu s s he lt ers lo cat edon publ ic si de walk s s urro un di ng publ ic pa rk s . . . .” All Flo rid a ci ti zen s h av e a ri gh t u nd er 1 1 th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on to “ ch at [] on apubl ic street ,” “ st ro ll [] aim le ss ly,” and

“ saun te r do wn a s id ewal k.” J.P., 9 07 So . 2dat 1 11 3 (quo ti ng Wy ch e v . Sta te , 61 9 So . 2d23 1, 2 35 (Fl a. 19 93 )). If the Cit y ha s a p ol ic y

of e nf or ci ng th e tr es pa ss or di na nc e o n s id ewal ks su rro un di ng publ ic park s as Pla in ti ffs all eg e, th e al le ge d Ci ty pol ic y

li m it s Pl ai nt iff

s’ rig htof i nt ras ta te tra ve l as de fin edby the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. The Cit y co ns ti tu ti on al ly m ay

bu rd enth is rig ht . Butth e Ci ty m us t m eeta co nd it io n fi rs t: th e Ci ty’ s p ol ic y m us t b e n arro wly ta il or edto adva nc e a co m pe ll in g g ov ern m en ta l i nt eres t. See J.P., 9 07 So . 2dat 1 11 5- 16 .

The City argues that the F lorida Supreme Court ha s not recognized a right to intrastate trave l to 1 1 a par ticular plac e and that the trespass or dinance only denies wa

rning -re cipients ac cess to the particula r plac e whe re the violation occurr ed. B ut Plainti ffs do not alleg e or a rgue that citizens of F lorida enjoy

a funda mental right to intrastate trave l to a particula r plac e on which the y

have trespasse d. Plaintiffs alleg e that the City has a policy

of enf orcing-- by

barring a cce ss to adjoining side walks and bus she lters -- the trespass or dinance beyond the boundaries of the public parks whe re violations have occur red. 18Eve n o n app eal , th e Ci ty ass ert s n o i nt eres t i n t hi s al le ge d e nf or cem en t o f th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce o n s id ewal ks no r do es th e Ci ty argu e th atth e al le ge d en fo rcem en t p ol ic ie s ar e n arro wly ta il or edto m eetth e Ci ty’ s g oa ls . W e can no t co nc lu de , bas edonth e al le ga ti on s an d a rg um en ts be fo re u s, tha t the Cit y ’s all eg ed po li cy of e nf or ci ng th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce o n p ub li c si de walk s p as se s the stric t sc ru ti ny tes t re qu ire d b y

Flo rid a la w. IV.

Pl ai nt iff s ch al le ng e Sec ti on 8-3 21 , th e st or ag e o rd in an ce, u nd er the Due Pro ces s C laus e as im

pe rm is si bl y

va gu e o n i ts face . Sect io n 8 -3 21 pro hi bi ts th e “un la wfu l” ou td oo r st or ag e o f, am on g o th er it em s, “pe rs on al pro pe rty inc lu di ng clo th in g o r be dd in g,” on pri va te pro pe rty and on publ ic pro pe rty, inc lu di ng publ ic rig ht s- of -way . §§ 8-3 21 (b )(5 ), (h )(4 ). Pl ai nt iff s ch al le ng e th e p art s o f Sec ti on 8-3 21 ab ou t s to rag e o n p ub li c p ro pe rty. Und er the ord in an ce, s to rag e is “br oa dl y in te rp ret edto in cl ud e an y act io n t o p la ce, st or e, pa rk , di sp lay , lo cat e, orset ” anit em of p ers on al pro pe rty. Sect io n 8 -3 21 (h )(1 ).

19If, p ur su an t t o t he st or ag e o rd in an ce, a ci ty offi ci al pro vi de s a p ers on with

writ te n n ot ic e th atth e p ers on is un la wfu ll y st or in g p ers on al it em s o n p ub li c pr op erty , th e p ers on m

us t re m ov e h is pe rs on al it em s fr om publ ic pro pe rty with in th irt y -s ix ho ur s. Sec ti on8-3 21 (d )(1 ). The C ity m ay rem ov e unl awfu ll y

st or ed it em s tha t re m ai n (o r ha ve be enm ov edto an othe r publ ic lo cat io n) on publ ic pr op erty aft er thi rty-si x h ours ha ve pa ss ed . §§ 8-3 21 (d )(1 ), (3 ). Mo reo ve r, if a si gnis po st edon publ ic pro pe rty “ st at in g t ha t una tt en de d i te m s m ay be rem ov ed imm ed ia te ly, th enno ad di ti on al no ti ce s ha ll be requi redan d t he it em m ay be rem ov edimm ed ia te ly.” Secti on 8-3 21 (d )(4 ). Pl ai nt iff s ar gu e th atth e st or ag e o rd in an ce i s v ag ue an d u nc on st itut io na l o n it s fa ce b ecau se itfai ls to de fin e su ffi ci en tl y th e te rm “un la wfu l s to rag e” o r fai ls to de fin e su ffi ci en tl y

th e te rm “un at te nd ed ” o r bo th . Plai nt iff s al le ge th atth e or di na nc e is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue be cau se itdo es no t “ ‘giv e th e p ers on of or di na ry in te ll ig en ce a re as on ab le op po rtu ni ty to kno w whatis pro hi bi te d . . .’” an d i t p ro vi de s n o “ su ffi ci en tl y ex pl ic itst an da rd s fo r th os e who wil l ap pl y it , th ereb y en co ur ag in g ‘arb itrary anddi sc riminat ory en fo rcem en t.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Si ng le Fam il y

Res id en ce, 8 03 F.2d62 5, 6 30 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (quo ti ng Grayne d v . Ci ty of Ro ck fo rd , 92 S. Ct. 2 29 4, 2 29 9 (1 97 2) ).

20Inbri ng in g afaci al ch al le ng e to anord in an ce fo r va gu en es s, a p arty “ ‘who en ga ge s i n s om e co nduc t tha t i s cl earl y pro sc rib edcan no t co m

pl ai n o f th e va gu en es s o f th e law as app li edto th e co nduc t o f ot he rs .’ ” Hol de r v. Hum an it ari anLaw Pro

ject, 1 30 S.Ct . 27 05 , 27 19 (20 10 ) (quo ti ng Vil l. o f Hof fm an Est at es v. Fl ip si de , Hoffm anEst at es , Inc ., 10 2 S . Ct. 1 18 6, 1 19 1 (1 98 2) ). Acco rd in gl y , eve n tho ug h t hi s ch al le ng e is a faci al ch al le ng e, we m us t d et erm in e whe th er the term s “ un lawfu l s to rag e” an d “ un atte nd ed ” are va gu e as ap pl ie d t o Pl ai nt iff s’ cir cu m st an ces . If Pla in ti ffs ’ own co nduc t i s cl earl y pro sc rib edby the te rm s o f th e o rd in an ce, thi s “ ne ces sa ril y pre cl ud es a fi nd in g o f fac ia l v ag ue ne ss .” Hig h Ol ’ Tim es , Inc . v. Bu sb ee, 6 73 F.2d12 25 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Fo r Pl ai nt iff

s’ “un lawfu l s to rag e” ar gu m en t, the term “un lawfu l s to rag e” cl earl y pro sc rib es pl ai nt iff

Reynol ds ’ al le ge d c on du ctan d i s n otva gu e. Reynol ds pl acedsev eral ba gs , bl an ke ts , andot he r pe rs on al be lo ng in gs -- m or e th ansh e co ul d c arry -- ona pa rkbe nc h b es id e h er. Reyno ld s k ep t the se it em s wi th he r be cau se “ sh e d idno t h av e acc es s t o s he lt er o r a p la ce t o s to re h er b el on gi ng s.” A po li ce o ffi cer g av e Reyno ld s wri tt enno ti ce tha t h er b el on gi ng s wer e “un la wfu ll y st or edon publ ic pro pe rty.” Pl ai nt iff s’ all eg at io ns in di cat e th atReynol ds accu m ul at edpe rs on al it em s an d k ep t the m

with h er o n p ub li c p ro pe rty to p res erv e th em forfutur e u se : thi s 21co nduc t ac co rd s wi th th e o rd in ary m ean in g o f th e wor d “ st or e.” Reyno ld s’

co nduc t was cle arl y

pro sc rib edby the st or ag e o rd in an ce: th us , th e o rd in an ce co ul d be co ns ti tu ti on al ly app li edto he r. In a dd it io n, b ecau se ev en“ th e p os si bi li ty of co ns ti tu ti on al ap pl ic at io n t o s om e o f th e co nduc t i n wh ic h t he [pl ai nt iff s] are en ga ge d n eces sa ril y

pre cl ud es a fi nd in g o f fac ia l v ag ue ne ss ,” an d aco ns ti tu ti on al ap pl ic at io n i s p os si bl e g iv enth e al le ga ti on s i n R ey no ld s’ cas e, we ne edno t ex am in e wha t i s al le ge d abo utpl ai nt iff Young ’s con du ct ; we ca n c on cl ud e th at Sect io n 8 -3 21 , onit s fa ce, i s n otun co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue init s d efi ni ti on of

“un lawfu l s to rag e.” See Bu sb ee, 6 73 F.2d12 25 , 12 28 . 1 2 Fo r “un at te nd ed ,” Pl ai nt iff Shum at e sa y s thi s t erm

is to o v ag ue an d t ha t h is own co nduc t was no t cl earl y pro sc rib edby the st or ag e o rd in an ce. The Cit y , on th ree o ccas io ns , rem ov edShum at e’s pe rs on al pro pe rty, whic h h e h adlef t te m po rari ly in the care of o th er p eo pl e, fro m a ci ty park ; ac co rd in g t o S hu m at e th e rem ov al s t oo k p la ce b ecau se th e Ci ty con si de redhi s p ro pe rty to b e “un atte nd ed ” Plaintiffs’ argument that variations in the exact amount of pe rsonal possessions offic ers have 1 2 said Plaintiffs are allowed to keep on public proper ty raise only

marg inal problems in the application of the ordinanc e that do not sug g est the ordinanc e is vague in its definition of the normal, “g ener al class of

offe nses” to which the ordinanc e is direc ted. United States Civil S erv. Comm'n v. Nat’l Ass' n of L etter Car riers, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 2897 (1973). “A s alway s, enfor ceme nt require s the exercise of

some degreeof police judgment,” Gr ay ned, 92 S.Ct. at 2302, and the degree of judgment involved for a police off

icer to determine what constitutes storag e is acc eptable. 22fo r th e p ur

po se of e nf

or ci ng th e st or ag e o rd in an ce. The co m m onan d o rd in ary m ean in g o f “un atte nd ed ” in di cat es th atanit em is no t “un at te nd ed ” if

so m e p ers on -- the own er o r hi s p ro xy -- is pre se ntwith t he it em an d l oo ki ng aft er i t. W E B S T E R ’ S T H IR D N E W I N T E RN A T IO N A L D IC T IO N A R Y 24 82 (19 93 ) (“ la ck in g a gu ard , esc ort, ca ret ak er, o r ot he r wat ch er”) . W e ag ree tha t Sh um at e’s al le ge d co nduc t was no t cl earl y

pro sc rib edby the st or ag e o rd in an ce. Bec au se Shum at e’s co nduc t was no t cl earl y pro sc rib edby the ch al le ng ed te rm s o f th e o rd in an ce, we m us t d eci de whet he r “ wha t the ord in an ce as a who le pr oh ib it s . . . inth e v as t m ajor ity of i ts in te nd edap pl ic at io ns ” is cle ar en ou gh . Hill v. Co lo rad o, 1 20 S.Ct . 24 80 , 24 98 (20 00 ) (quo ta ti on s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Giv enhe al th , saf

ety , andsec ur ity

co nc ern s, the City ’s rem ov al (ev enimm ed ia te rem ov al when a warn in g s ig n i s p os te d) of u na tt en de d i te m s o n p ub li c p ro pe rty wou ldno t s ur

pr is e a p ers onof o rd in ary in te ll ig en ce wh o l eftpe rs on al be lo ng in gs un at te nd ed-- th atis , no t cl os el y an d p la in ly accompan ie d b y so m eo ne ass oc ia te d with t he own er -- o n p ub li c p ro pe rty. Andalt ho ug h S hu m at e’s sp eci fic co nduc t was no t cl earl y

pro sc rib edby the st or ag e o rd in an ce, i n t he va stm ajor ity of the in te nded ap pl ic at io ns of t he ord in an ce, the ord in ary m ean in g o f “un at te nd ed ” is no t s o b ro adas t o e nc ou rag e arb itrary or d is cri m in at ory en fo rcem en t. Cf. Bu sb ee,

2367 3 F .2dat 1 22 9 (i f a l aw is su sc ep ti bl e o f anin te rp ret at io n wh ic h c ur es th e la w’ s

va gu en es s, the co urt m

us t ac co rdth e la w su chm ean in g) . W e can no t co nc lu de th atth e o rd in an ce i s fa ci al ly voi d fo r va gu en es s be cau se we can no t co nc lu de th atitis “ im pe rm is si bl y

va gu e in all it s ap pl ic at io ns .” Hof fm anEst at es , 10 2 S .Ct. at11 91 .

V.

W e AFFIR M the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng , exc ep t we VACATE th e d is tri ct co urt’s d is m is si ng th e cl ai m th atSect io n 2 0- 30 vi ol at es pro cedur al du e p ro ces s an d d is m is si ng th e cl ai m

th atSect io n 2 0- 30 vi ol at es th e ri gh t t o i nt ras tate tra ve l un de r th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on . AFFIRMED in pa rt, VACATED inpa rt, andREMANDED.

24HODGES, Distric t J ud ge , Con cu rri ng inpa rt a ndDis se nt in g i n p art :

I co nc urinth os e p art s o f th e m ajor ity op in io n t ha t af

firm th e ru li ng s o f th e di st ric t co urt, b utres pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fr om

th e m ajor ity

ho ld in g (P artIII.A.) th at th e App el lant s h av e ad equa te ly ple ad eda de pr iv at io n o f pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s as to Sect io n 2 0- 30 , th e tr es pa ss ord in an ce, an d I wo ul d n otreac h t he st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im

reg ard in g t he rig htto in tra st at e tr av el (PartIII.C.). Insu m , I wou ldaffi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e act io n, b utwith in st ru ct io n t o d is m is s the st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im witho utpre

jud ic e, th ereb y le av in g t ha t i ss ue forth e st at e co urts to res ol ve . I. As the m ajor ity

sk il lfu ll y po in ts ou t, the li be rty int eres t as se rte d b y th e App el lant s i s b ifu rcat edan d p ro gr es si ve inna tu re an d s ig ni fic an ce. At the ti m e a tre sp as s warni ng is is su ed , no tre sp as s h as y etoc cu rredan d t he li m it at io n upo n t he cl ai m an t’s l ib erty

of m ov em en t i s m in im al . If th e warn in g i s l at er unh eed ed res ul ti ng inanarre st , th e d ep riv at io n o f th e cl ai m an t’s l ib erty is ob vi ou sl y

m uc h m or e se ve re. Thi s i s i m

po rta ntbe cau se th e p ro ces s tha t i s due de pe nd s upo n t he ex te ntor s ig ni fic an ce o f th e d ep riv at io n i nv ol ve d. Se e Gil be rt v . Hom ar, 5 20 U.S. 92 4, 9 31 , 11 7 S .Ct. 1 80 7, 1 81 2, 1 38 L.Ed.2d12 0 (1 99 7) ; M athe ws v . Eldrid ge , 42 4 U.S. 3 19 , 33 5, 9 6 S .Ct. 8 93 , 90 3, 4 7 L.Ed .2d18 (19 76 ); M orris se y v. Br ewer, 2540 8 U.S. 4 71 , 48 1, 9 2 S .Ct. 2 59 3, 2 60 0, 3 3 L.Ed .2d48 4 (1 97 2) ; Go ldbe rg v.

Kell y , 39 7 U.S. 2 54 , 26 3, 9 0 S .Ct. 1 01 1, 1 01 8, 2 5 L.Ed .2d28 7 (1 97 0) . Here, as no te d i n t he m ajor ity op in io n, the tre sp as s warni ng is su edto App el lantAntho ny Catro n e xp res sl y st at edth atitwas e ffec ti ve “un le ss su ch pr oh ib it io n i s re sc in de d i n wri ti ng by the Cit y off ic ia l h av in g c on tro l o ve r th e pr em is es .” The m ajor ity

di sm is se s thi s d ecl arat io n a s i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh a ne ces sa ry pro cedur e, an d t hi s i s the po in t o f m y di sa gr eem en t. The m ere m en ti on of res ci ss io n n eces saril y

im pl ie s –an d g iv es no ti ce o f – t he rig htto ap pl y to th e de si gn at edcit y

off ic ia l fo r rev ie w andpo ss ib le rel ie f. To b e su re, tha t i s n otan el ab or at e p ro cedur al m ech an is m , bu t I d eem itto be en ou gh un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces to pro vi de th e requi redpro cedur al saf eg ua rdforth e m in im al de pr iv at io n o ccas io ne d b y a tr es pa ss warn in g. Th om ps on v. As he , 25 0 F .3d39 9 (6 th Cir . 20 01 ) is a cas e rem ark ab ly on p oi nt . Alb ertTho m ps on was p la cedon a

“ no tre sp as s” li stby a publ ic ho us in g autho rit y pro hi bi ti ng en try by

Tho m ps on up on th e g ro un ds of p ub li c h ou si ng faci li ti es m an ag edby the au th or ity . Amon g ot he r cl ai m s, Th om

ps on ass ert eda vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s. The Six th Cir cu ithe ld(25 0 F .3dat 4 07 -4 08 ) th ata m eet in g b etweenTho m ps on an d t he ex ecu ti ve di rect orof t he au th or ity co nc ern in g Th om

ps on ’s pl acement o n th e li stwas s uf

fic ie ntto sat is fy

an y pro ces s h e was du e. 26II .

If the di sm is sa l o f th e fed eral cla im s i s af firm edinall res pe ct s, as I be li ev e to be ap pr op ria te , itth enbe co m es un ne ces sa ry to de ci de whatto do ab ou t the st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d i t wi th pre jud ic e whi le th e m ajor ity (PartIII.C.) h ol ds th atth e cl ai m sh ou ldbe rei ns ta te d. Inth e ab se nc e o f th e fed eral cla im s, h owe ve r, th e st atut e – 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 7( c)(3 ) – p ro vi de s a m ech an is m

forde cl in in g juris di ct io n i n o rd er tha t the st at e co urts m ay res ol ve is su es of s tate law, es pe ci al ly iss ue s o f st at e co ns ti tu ti on al law. Th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e cl earl y

fal l wi th in th e am

bi t o f th e rel ev an t au th or it ie s t each in g t ha t di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce i s the ap pr op ria te co ur se of a ct io n h ere. Se e Parke r v. Scrap M et al Pro ces so rs , Inc ., 46 8 F .3d73 3, 7 42 -7 47 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). See al so Uni te d M in e Work ers v. Gi bb s, 3 83 U.S. 71 5, 8 6 S .Ct. 1 13 0, 1 6 L.Ed .2d21 8 (1 96 6) ; M erg en s v . Drey fo os , 16 6 F .3d11 14 , 11 19 (11 thCir . 19 99 ) (“ [I]f th e fed eral cla im s ar e d is m is se d p rio r to tri al , Gib bs stro ng ly enco ur ag es or e ve n requi res di sm is sa l o f st at e cl ai m s.”) .

27