2d DCA Allows City to Maintain Appeal of Mooring Ordinance Prosecution
City of Marco Island v. Dumas, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
Anti-cruiser, anti-liveaboard ordinances are a pet peeve of mine, having grown up living and cruising on boats. The City of Marco Island criminally prosecuted David Dumas for anchoring his boat within 300 feet of a residential property. (note – this is probably preempted under a recent statute). These types of ordinances implicate and generally violate the commerce clause of the US Constitution, which allows free navigation of all navigable waters of the United States, subject only to Congressional regulation.
So when prosecuted, Dumas filed a motion to dismiss based on the violation of the US Constitution and – not shocking – won the motion. The Court later dismissed the charge formally. The City appealed to circuit court, and Dumas claimed it was too late This turns into a question of when the order was final, and the 2d DCA agreed with the City.
Not that the City should win its appeal.
Anti-cruiser, anti-liveaboard ordinances are a pet peeve of mine, having grown up living and cruising on boats. The City of Marco Island criminally prosecuted David Dumas for anchoring his boat within 300 feet of a residential property. (note – this is probably preempted under a recent statute). These types of ordinances implicate and generally violate the commerce clause of the US Constitution, which allows free navigation of all navigable waters of the United States, subject only to Congressional regulation.
So when prosecuted, Dumas filed a motion to dismiss based on the violation of the US Constitution and – not shocking – won the motion. The Court later dismissed the charge formally. The City appealed to circuit court, and Dumas claimed it was too late This turns into a question of when the order was final, and the 2d DCA agreed with the City.
Not that the City should win its appeal.