Case Name: Carl Leroy THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-03-28
Citations: 583 So. 2d 336
Docket Number: No. 89-2549
Parties: Carl Leroy THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, W. SHARP, GOSHORN, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 583
Pages: 336–347

Head Matter:
Carl Leroy THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-2549.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 28, 1991.
On Motion for Rehearing/Certification Aug. 8, 1991.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Barbara L. Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
Orlando Municipal Ordinance, Chapter 10, Section 10.08, provides:
No person shall ride a bicycle on the streets of the city without having a bell or gong with which to warn pedestrians and drivers of vehicles at street crossings.
Orlando Municipal Ordinance, Chapter 10, Section 1.08 provides that for a violation of the above municipal ordinance the penalty is punishment "by a fine not exceeding five-hundred dollars ($500.00) and/or a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days."
A law enforcement officer observed the defendant riding a bicycle on a street in the City of Orlando without having a bell or a gong as required by the municipal ordinance. The officer stopped the defendant and arrested him for violation of the municipal ordinance. Incidental to that arrest, the officer searched the defendant and found him to be carrying a concealed firearm on his person. The defendant was charged with carrying a concealed firearm in violation of section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes.
The defendant moved to suppress the seized firearm and argued (1) that the stop was pretextual, (2) that because a violation of the municipal ordinance was not a "crime" he could not be arrested for a violation of the ordinance, (3) that the search was not incidental to an arrest because the defendant was not arrested or cited for violation of the ordinance, (4) that the municipal ordinance, in providing for imprisonment for its violation, was unconstitutional, (5) that the ordinance was being selectively enforced, (6) that the ordinance was unreasonable in light of the fact that state statutes regulating similar matters have been decriminalized, and (7) that the municipal ordinance was invalid in that the regulation of bicycles was preempted by state statutes.
The trial court found the stop was not pretextual, that state statutes have not preempted the regulation of bicycles by a municipality, that the ordinance and its penalty were constitutional, reasonable and valid, that the defendant was validly arrested pursuant to section 901.15(1), Florida Statutes, because of a violation of the municipal ordinance, that the search was incidental to a valid arrest, and denied the motion to suppress. The defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the concealed firearm charge, was sentenced to probation, and appeals.
PRETEXTUAL STOP:
In determining whether a stop is a mere pretext an objective standard is applied to determine if under the facts and circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose. Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988); Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also, United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704 (11th Cir.1986), Cf. Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978). The trial court found that under the facts and circumstances the stop was not pretextual. The record on appeal reflects competent substantial evidence to support this factual finding by the trial judge. The arresting officer personally observed the defendant riding, on a street of the city, a bicycle not equipped with the required sounding device. Therefore, the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. See Reynolds v. State, 222 So.2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
ARREST FOR VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE:
Section 901.15(1), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:
A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant when:
(1) The person has . violated a municipal . ordinance in the presence of the officer.
The unambiguous language of this statute shows a clear legislative intent to specifically authorize a law enforcement officer to arrest a person who violates a municipal ordinance in the officer's presence.
Some dissention to long established law results from an erroneous assumption and a deduction based on that assumption. The assumption is that one can be arrested only for the commission of a "crime." The deduction is that if the violation of a municipal ordinance is not denoted or described as a "crime" one cannot be arrested for that violation. The assumption is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of an arrest. An arrest is the act of legal authority taking actual physical custody of a citizen and is a restraint on that citizen's liberty but it is an error to assume that is the purpose of the arrest. It is not. The purpose of an arrest or apprehension and resulting detention is to cause the detained person to be identified and to be forthcoming to answer some demand, charge or accusation against him. Custody and detention is a consequence, or by-product, of that purpose. An arrest, or any other word describing the same act, is a necessary part of any system which, to be effective, requires a person to be identified and placed under some constraint to appear and participate in a proceeding the result of which may be undesired, without regard to whether that proceeding is denoted to be criminal, or whether one possible undesired result of the proceeding may, or may not, be confinement as a penalty. There is no constitutional prohibition against a statute providing for the arrest of a person violating a municipal ordinance. Whether the term "crime" includes violations of municipal ordinances depends in any state upon the local definition of "crime" and "misdemeanor." Nevertheless, historically, crimes have been generally considered offenses against the state and a state has been construed to mean, literally, the commonwealth in its sovereign capacity. Cities have not been considered sovereignties and, accordingly, violations of municipal ordinances have not been legally classified as "crimes."
Note should be taken of several provisions of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure which recognize that violations of municipal ordinances are not considered crimes or misdemeanors; that persons are arrested and held in confinement to answer charges of violations of municipal ordinances and that for such violation they may be subject to imprisonment as a penalty. Rule 3.111(b)(1) provides that counsel does not have to be provided to an indigent person in a prosecution for a misdemeanor or a violation of a municipal ordinance if the judge files a pretrial statement that no imprisonment will result from conviction. Rule 3.125(b) provides that if a person is arrested for violation of a municipal or county ordinance triable in the county, the arresting officer may issue a notice to appear except in six specified circumstances. Rule 3.131(a) provides that "every person charged with a crime or violation of a municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release [from pretrial confinement resulting from arrest] on reasonable conditions."
SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST:
A lawful arrest establishes the authority for a full search of the person arrested being an exception to the warrant requirement and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); State v. Gustafson, 258 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972), affirmed, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973). See also D.L.C. v. State, 298 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (juvenile defendant's violation of municipal ordinance and admission that he had been drinking alcoholic beverages justified arrest, and marijuana found on his person in search pursuant to arrest was admissible as evidence). The Supreme Court in Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) held that evidence obtained after a search incident to an arrest in reliance on a municipal ordinance should not be suppressed even when the ordinance is subsequently declared unconstitutional and notwithstanding that the defendant was not charged or tried for violation of that ordinance. The arrest of the defendant in the instant case for a violation of Orlando Municipal Ordinance 10.08 was lawful. Therefore the search of the defendant incident to the arrest was lawful.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDINANCE:
Article VIII, § 2(b) of the Florida Constitution provides:
Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law.
Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, the home rule legislation, implements Article VIII § 2. As a general rule the only constitutional limitation on municipal power is that such power must be exercised for a municipal purpose. Therefore, municipalities are not dependent on the legislature for further authorization. Legislative statutes may be relevant to determine limitations of authority. State v. City of Sunrise, 354 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1978). See also, City of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia, 535 So.2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). A municipality may, under its broad home rule powers, prescribe penalties for violation of its ordinances. See, 1989 Opinion Attorney General, Florida, No. 89-24, (April 21, 1989).
Nor has the defendant demonstrated that the adoption by the City of Orlando of its bicycle bell ordinance (section 10.08) or its penalty (section 1.08) were beyond the grant of powers contained in the charter granted the city by the state legislature.
There is no constitutional or statutory limitation on the city's power to prescribe incarceration as a penalty for violation of the city ordinance involved in this case. The wisdom or "reasonableness" of statutes and ordinances are matters solely within the discretion and legitimate concern of the legislative branch of government in enacting or adopting them. If a statute, or its enactment, does not violate a constitutional limitation and if a city ordinance, or its adoption, is not prohibited by constitutional provision and is within the powers granted the city by the legislature, by general statutes or special statutes granting city charter powers, such statutes or ordinances are valid and it is beyond the judicial function and power for courts to declare them invalid on the ground or belief that they are, for any reason, "unreasonable" or "undesirable."
Chapter 162, which permits enforcement of municipal and county ordinances either through code enforcement boards or officers, limits punishment to a fine. However, the statute provides "[njothing contained in this section shall prohibit a . municipality from enforcing its code or ordinances by any other means." Further, in determining that those convicted of noncriminal violations could not be jailed, the legislature added "except as provided . by ordinance of any city or county." § 775.082(5), Fla.Stat. (1989).
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT:
In order to constitute a denial of equal protection the selective enforcement must be deliberately based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962); Bell v. State, 369 So.2d 932 (Fla.1979); see also, King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). The mere failure to prosecute all offenders is not grounds for a claim of denial of equal protection. Bell; Moss v. Homig, 314 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1963). There has been no showing that enforcement of the Orlando Municipal Ordinance in this instance was deliberately based on an arbitrary classification.
PREEMPTION:
A municipality cannot forbid what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized or required, nor may it authorize what the legislature has expressly forbidden. Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); Donisi v. Trout, 415 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 29 (1983). The question is whether the legislature has denied municipalities the right to legislate on the subject. The mere existence of state regulations does not preclude a local authority from adding additional requirements as long as no conflict exists. 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 15.20 (3d Ed.) Section 316.2065, Florida Statutes, requires certain equipment (lights, reflectors, brakes) on bicycles but does not prohibit bells, gongs or other audible warning devices.
The legal concept of preemption does not apply to the relationship between a state statute and a municipal ordinance for basically the same reason the violation of a municipal ordinance is not considered a "crime." The reason again is that a municipality is not a sovereignty. The concept of preemption, as well as that of comity, is best understood and explained in terms of sovereignty and accommodations between sovereign powers. In concept neither the states nor the federal government created the other — the people created each and except as they were conceived and created unequal, both entities are equal and sovereign. Comity is that respect and courtesy that governmental equals accord the acts of each other as a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will. On the other hand, not even sovereign equals can always amiably occupy or act within the same space at the same time and some rule must apply. This is where the concept of preemption applies. Preemption has connotations of mild belligerency, hostility or disagreement, also implications of superiority and subservience, and really means that while both of two sovereignties are theoretically equal, the less powerful "equal" (a state) cannot legislate where its more powerful "equal" (the federal government) legislates. The doc trines of comity and preemption have nothing to do with the relationship between a municipality and a sovereign state whose legislature has created the municipality. That relationship is one of a creature and its creator. See Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970); see also, City of Wilton Manors v. Starling, 121 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). The city has no sovereign power and exists and exercises all governmental power at the will of the state legislature. If a municipality has any power that displeases the state legislature the State does not have to be polite and tolerant (comity) nor push or shove by asserting a superior inconsistent power (preemption) — the State can merely withdraw that municipal power or it may melt its creature down and repour it into a smaller mold, thereby recreating the city without the offending power. The State can do this by enacting a general law or a special law amending or repealing the city's charter. The City of Orlando now has the power to adopt ordinances, such as safety ordinances requiring bells on bicycles, and the power to provide for enforcement of ordinances by penalties, including imprisonment for 60 days. If the State desires to limit or eliminate ("preempt") this power of the city, the state legislature need only enact a statute providing simply that the City of Orlando may not require bells on bicycles or that the City of Orlando may not provide for imprisonment as a penalty for the violation of any ordinance. The state legislature has not seen fit to so restrict the city's municipal power and state judicial officers should not attempt to do it by judicial decree.
While there is a judicial remedy for law enforcement abuses, such as pretextual stops and selective enforcement practices, that remedy is not for the courts to hold invalid the statute or ordinance being abused. Otherwise law enforcement officers, members of the executive branch of government, could, by abusive enforcement practices, cause the judicial branch to invalidate statutes or ordinances, validly enacted by the legislative branch. This would violate constitutional provisions embodying separation of powers doctrine.
Orlando Municipal Ordinance, Chapter 10, Section 10.08 is a proper exercise of the City of Orlando's police power. It does not conflict with constitutional or statutory limitations, nor is it "preempted" by existing state statutes. The arrest and subsequent search of the defendant was valid. The denial of the defendant's motion to suppress was proper.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, W. SHARP, GOSHORN, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ" concur.
HARRIS, J., dissents with opinion with which DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
. See Koch v. State, 126 Wisc. 470, 106 N.W. 531, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1096, 5 Ann.Cas. 389 (1906); In re Sanford, 117 Kan. 750, 752, 232 P. 1053 (1925); City of Burlington v. Stockwell, 1 Kan. App. 414, 41 P. 221, 56 Kan. 208, 42 P. 826 (1895).
. For a discussion of federal preemption of state legislation as mandated by the supremacy cialise (Art. IV, cl. 2 U.S. Const.) see, 1 Rotunda, Nowak & Young, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, § 12.1-4, (1986) and Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 6-25 (2d Ed.1988).
. Article II, section 3, Fla. Const.
. We are aware that the Orange County Circuit Court, sitting in a three member appellate panel, may have reached an opposite conclusion in Powers v. State, Case No. CJAP89-95 (September 25, 1990).