A Florida Judge Says $165,000 in Fines for 3 Minor Code Violations Is Not 'Excessive'

A Florida judge yesterday ruled against a Lantana homeowner who faces more than $165,000 in fines for three minor code violations that harmed no one. Sandy Martinez, who is represented by the Institute for Justice (I.J.), argued that the financially crippling demand, which stems from driveway cracks, a storm-damaged fence, and cars that were parked partially on her own lawn, violates the Florida Constitution's ban on excessive fines and its guarantee of due process. But Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Luis Delgado granted the city's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the fines were not "grossly disproportionate."

Martinez hopes to persuade Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal that Delgado is wrong about that. "Six-figure fines for parking on your own property are outrageous," says I.J. attorney Mike Greenberg. "The Florida Constitution's Excessive Fines Clause was designed to stop precisely this sort of abuse—to prevent people from being fined into poverty for trivial violations. The court's opinion renders those bedrock protections a dead letter. We will appeal."

Martinez's debt to the city began accumulating in 2013, when she was cited for cracks in her driveway. For a single mother with a modest income who was living from one paycheck to another, the cost of laying a new driveway was hard to manage. But in the meantime, daily fines of $75 continued to accrue, eventually reaching a total of $16,125 with interest—"far greater than the cost of an entirely new driveway," she notes in the lawsuit that she filed against the city in February 2021.

In 2015, Martinez was cited for a fence that had been knocked down by a storm. Again, the repairs necessary to bring her into compliance were more expensive than she could immediately afford. While she waited for her insurance company to pay her claim...

I am shocked at your response. Its her house, her lawn, her fence. Why do you think the government should be telling a homeowner not to park in their private yard? I have cracks in my driveway, does that means the government should force me to fix that if I don’t have money? Unless her property is an eyesore, with garbage and rodents running free, the government needs to stay out of it. Cracks in the driveway, a blown down fence and a tire on the grass does not merit governmental interference. This site is called Free Republic, and you are showing that you prefer governmental force on its citizens. Why are you here?

There is something about being an "official" that drives what may have been normal people to become ogres bent on draconian control of the mere sheeple they now see themselves obligated to control. Fact is, they were seated to SERVE the people and somehow they pervert that to CONTROL the people. The effect of election or designation to become an "official" seems to be universal. This group of proposals emerged in the local paper just this week. Some probably should have been in place long ago but others are just outright unnecessary and probably even unenforceable. I don't very often see anyone walking their pet alligator on a leash in the park:

• Adding a section prohibiting the sale or give away of animals at the roadside or at parking lots within the city, without specific exceptions

• Requiring spaying or neutering of domesticated animals, except those belonging to hobby breeders and kennels, or under the care of a veterinarian or animal hospital

• Requiring tags and collars, as well as rabies vaccination • Limiting animals in city parks and on park trails to dogs only, which must be on a leash at all times

• Impounding, euthanizing or adopting out of animals • Regaining [retaining?] impounded animals, which requires licensing, vaccinating and spaying or neutering

• Adding a section on feeding of stray dogs, cats or other stray animals

• Prohibiting the feeding of stray animals, except by a veterinarian or an employee of a humane society or by special permit by the city

• Licensing and limiting the number of animals owned without obtaining a special handlers license from the city

• Prohibiting the restraint of animals by chaining or tying, unless authorized by an animal welfare official

• Requiring liability insurance or surety bond indemnifying the owner of personal injuries inflicted by a dangerous animal

• Clarifying the definition of domestic birds, small animals, household pets, rabies and feeding of animals • Keeping of swine, which is limited to miniature pigs, except for educational programs and exhibition purposes

• Eliminating special handlers licenses

You may not be able to fight city hall but you can't fight ignorance either.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.