CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...at grant
the motions to dismiss filed by Christopher James Carrier and Wendy Carrier and
dismiss the charges against them in these prosecutions for fifty-six counts of forging,
counterfeiting, or altering an animal health document in violation of section 585.145(3),
Florida Statutes (2013 and 2014). The trial court determined that section 585.145(3)
was unconstitutionally vague on its face and violated substantive due process. Based
on our interpretation of the language in section 585.145(3), we determine that the
statute requires a knowing alteration that results in a false or deceptive certificate and
that the statute is not facially vague and does not violate substantive due process for
criminalizing otherwise innocent conduct. Thus, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
The State contends that the trial court erred in determining that section
585.145(3) is unconstitutionally vague on its face and violates substantive due process.
The purpose of section 585.145 is "for the control, suppression, eradication, and
prevention of the spread of contagious, infectious, and communicable disease and to
protect animals in the state." § 585.145(1). Section 585.145(3) provides as follows:
(3) A person who forges, counterfeits, simulates or alters, or
who knowingly possesses, uses, presents or utters, any
forged, counterfeited, altered or simulated of...
...present or utter, said
forged, counterfeited, altered or simulated official certificate of veterinary inspection."
-2-
The Carriers each filed a motion to dismiss, both contending that section
585.145(3) violates substantive due process because that statute arbitrarily criminalizes
innocent conduct and lacks a mens rea element....
...altering a certificate violates substantive due process for criminalizing otherwise
innocent conduct, such as the editing of a .pdf document available online, without
requiring a mens rea, or criminal intent. The State contends that when the word "alters"
in section 585.145(3) is read in context with the preceding words "forges, counterfeits,
simulates," the word "alters" can be read to contain a mens rea requirement of alters
with the intent to defraud.
Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that we review de novo....
...g at a clerical job"); Wegner,
928
So. 2d at 439 (construing a statute to require "knowledge by the accused that the
person from whom or about whom he has received the computer transmissions is a
minor").
The statute at issue here, section
585.145(3), does not expressly contain
an intent element for one who alters a certificate....
...re logo to the certificate.
Thus, we necessarily construe the statute in context as requiring that the knowing
alteration result in a false or deceptive document. Accordingly, we conclude that
- 11 -
section 585.145(3) does not violate substantive due process as criminalizing otherwise
innocent conduct.
Substantive Due Process—Void for Vagueness
The Carriers argued and the trial court agreed that section 585.145(3) is
facially void for vagueness as to the phrase "alters." The State argued that the statute
is not vague as applied to the Carriers....
...In addition, "the statute must define
the offense in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement." Brake, 796 So. 2d at 528. We note that it does not appear that arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement has been a problem with section 585.145(3), which was
first enacted in 1991, as there are no reported cases dealing with the statute....
... prove regarding any deceptive nature of the alterations. And if the State can prove that
Dr. Carrier signed the certificates when he was not authorized, perhaps the State can
prove his conduct amounts to a violation of the statute.
In summary, we determine that section 585.145(3) is not vague on its
face; further, in light of our construing the statute as requiring that a violation must be
based on the knowing alteration of a certificate such that it results in a false or deceptive
document, the statute does not violate substantive due process....
