CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 422872
...Lemonidis and Bob R. Cherry of O'Brien, Riemenschneider, Kancilia & Lemonidis, P.A., Melbourne, Florida, for Appellee. PARIENTE, J. We have on appeal Stepansky v. State,
707 So.2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal declaring section
910.006(3)(d), [1] Florida Statutes (1995), to be unconstitutional as an intrusion "upon the exclusive province of [the United States] Congress and the President as delineated by Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution." Stepansky,
707 So.2d at 879. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we reverse the decision of the Fifth District and find that section
910.006(3)(d), which is part of Florida's "special maritime criminal jurisdiction" statute, is constitutional as applied in this case....
...rred outside the territorial jurisdiction of Florida and because the prosecution was precluded by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. In response, the State argued that Florida state courts have jurisdiction over this crime under section
910.006(3)(d) because the majority of the paying passengers on the cruise ship had embarked and intended to disembark in Florida. The trial court denied the motion, and Stepansky sought a writ of prohibition from the Fifth District. The Fifth District issued the writ, holding that the Florida Legislature was without constitutional authority to enact section
910.006(3)(d) because the statute intruded upon the exclusive province of Congress and the President under the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 10. See Stepansky,
707 So.2d at 879. ANALYSIS Section
910.006(3)(d) of the special maritime criminal jurisdiction statute that is the subject of the constitutional attack in this case extends the ability of this State to prosecute crimes to criminal acts committed on cruise ships sailing outside the State's territorial waters [5] if the "act or omission occurs during a voyage on which over half of the revenue passengers on board the ship originally embarked and plan to finally disembark" in Florida. §
910.006(3)(d). [6] In determining whether section
910.006(3)(d) is constitutional, we must "resolve all doubts as to the validity of [the] statute in favor of its constitutionality, provided the statute may be given a fair construction consistent with the federal and state constitutions as well as with the legislative intent." State v....
...Because there was no conflict with federal law and the State had an interest in the proper maintenance of its sponge fishery, the Court found that the State continued to exercise its traditional police powers. See id. With this constitutional framework in mind, we examine whether section 910.006(3)(d) conflicts with federal law and whether the prosecution is within the State's police powers....
...erate to limit the jurisdiction traditionally asserted by the United States over foreign vessels on the high seas. See United States v. Postal,
589 F.2d 862, 884 (5th Cir.1979); see also Roberts
1 F.Supp.2d at 606. Therefore, the question of whether section
910.006(3)(d) is in violation of this treaty is not properly before this Court....
...iction to the federal courts in 18 U.S.C. § 7 is concurrent rather than exclusive in cases where the offense violates the laws of both sovereigns. Keen,
504 So.2d at 399. 4. Conclusion: No Conflict With Federal Law We conclude that the structure of section
910.006 ensures that it will not violate the constitution, that it will not conflict with the exercise of jurisdiction by federal courts, and that it will not interfere with the uniform working of the maritime legal system. See Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n,
918 F.2d at 1422. Section
910.006 provides that the State is not authorized to prosecute a crime under this statute unless federal law "prohibit[s] substantially the same act or omission." §
910.006(4). Further, pursuant to section
910.006(4), "No person shall be tried under this section if that person has been tried in good faith for substantially the same act or omission." Similarly, section
910.006(5)(a)1. specifies: "This section is not intended to assert priority over or otherwise interfere with the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the United States, the flag state, or the state in whose territory an act or omission occurs." Accordingly, section
910.006 makes clear that the State will not exercise jurisdiction if the federal government, the foreign flag *1035 state, or the state in whose territory the act occurs prosecutes the defendant....
...ritorial limits of the State under the effects doctrine as long as the exercise of jurisdiction does not conflict with federal law and the exercise *1036 of jurisdiction is a reasonable application of the effects doctrine. [14] The stated purpose of section 910.006 as set forth in the legislative findings and intent is as follows: (1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. (a) The State of Florida is a major center for international travel and trade by sea....
...orcement responsibility of any other jurisdiction. (e) The State of Florida should establish special maritime criminal jurisdiction extending to acts or omissions on board ships outside of the state under the circumstances delimited in this section. § 910.006(1)....
...Similarly, in this case the Legislature has determined that the State of Florida is a "major center for international travel and trade by sea" and that the "state has an interest in ensuring the protection of persons traveling to or from Florida by sea." § 910.006(1)(a), (c)....
...Just as the federal government has the authority to prosecute crimes under these circumstances without offending international law, basic principles of federalism allow the states to prosecute under the effects doctrine when there is no conflict with federal law and the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Section 910.006(3)(d) is of limited scope and designed to take effect only when neither the flag state nor the United States government acts in a particular case. Accordingly, we find that section 910.006(3)(d) is constitutional as applied....
...SHAW, ANSTEAD, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion in which HARDING, C.J., concurs. WELLS, J., dissenting. I dissent. I believe that the majority misinterprets both case law and the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations (1986) in finding section 910.006(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), to be constitutional as applied in this case. I would find, as did the Fifth District below, that the Legislature lacked constitutional authority to enact section 910.006(3)(d) as it is presently written....
...Sub judice, it is clear from the record that the essential element of premeditation occurred within Florida. The jury was properly instructed by the trial court that in order to return a verdict of guilty, they must find that an essential element of the crime occurred within the state.
504 So.2d at 398-99 (emphasis added). Section
910.006(3)(d), the statutory subsection under scrutiny in this case, does not require that one of the essential elements of a crime being prosecuted occur within the territorial boundaries of Florida....
...husetts was presented and was decided favor of that Commonwealth. The question as to the extent of the authority of a State over its own citizens on the high seas was not involved.
313 U.S. at 76-77,
61 S.Ct. 924 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Section
910.006(3)(d) does not purport to regulate only the conduct of residents of Florida....
...§ 7(8) extends federal criminal jurisdiction to offenses committed by or against United States nationals. However, even if concurrent jurisdiction did exist for Florida under the effects doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations, we note that the breadth of section 910.006(3)(d), Florida Statutes, purports to extend jurisdiction over "acts or omissions" without stating whether such acts or omissions must be committed by a Florida resident....
...yond any potential concurrent federal jurisdiction, and thus is invalid, as the Fifth District below stated, unless otherwise authorized under a federal statute, the United States Constitution, or international law. HARDING, C.J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 910.006(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in relevant part: The special maritime criminal jurisdiction of the state extends to acts or omissions on board a ship outside of the state under any of the following circumstances: ....
...14 (1995) (explaining that a "`geographic' mile is the length of one minute of the arc of the equator, or 6,087.08 feet," a "`nautical' mile is 6,076.11549 feet," and a "`statute' or `English' mile (used on land) is 5,280 feet"). [3] The United States has also declined our invitation to file an amicus brief in this case. [4] Section 910.006(2)(a) defines the "flag state" as the state under whose laws the ship is registered....
...[6] Other sections of this statute extend the jurisdiction of this State to prosecute criminal acts committed on cruise ships in other circumstances, including where "[t]he victim is a Florida law enforcement officer on board the ship in connection with his or her official duties," § 910.006(3)(e), "[t]he act or omission is one of violence ... generally recognized as criminal, and the victim is a resident of this state," § 910.006(3)(f), or the "act or omission causes or constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to cause a substantial effect in this state that is an element of the offense charged." § 910.006(3)(g)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 95280
...cts. See, e.g., People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279 (1980); People v. Corsino, 91 Misc.2d 46, 397 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y.CityCrim.Ct.1977); Corbin v. State, 672 P.2d 156 (Ct.App.Alaska 1983). In 1989, the legislature enacted section 910.006 entitled "State special maritime criminal jurisdiction" which in relevant part purports to extend to the State of Florida special maritime criminal jurisdiction: (3) to acts or omissions on board a ship outside of the state under any...
...ge on which over half of the revenue passengers on board the ship originally embarked and plan to finally disembark in this state, without regard to intermediate stopovers. Stepansky is being prosecuted in Brevard County Circuit Court pursuant to subsection 910.006(3)(d) for burglary and attempted sexual battery allegedly occurring while he was a passenger on the M/V Atlantic, a Liberian registered cruise ship, 100 miles off the coast of Florida, in international waters....
...[3] Whatever may be the validity vel non of the federal legislation in light of present day international law, an issue not before us, we do not see that legislation as authorizing the extension of the territorial boundaries of Florida. It seems clear that section 910.006(3)(d), as applied in this case, is violative of international law and the treaty obligations of the United States....
...just that. The State of Florida is constitutionally prohibited from entering into a treaty with Liberia in respect to jurisdiction of crimes on the high seas. See Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution. [4] Accordingly, we find that section 910.006(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was enacted by the Florida Legislature without the constitutional authority to do so, thereby intruding upon the exclusive province of Congress and the President as delineated by Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution....
...ard a foreign vessel on the high seas if it chooses to do so. Thus, the United States could try Stepansky under federal law. The issue before us is whether Florida can do so. I agree with Judge Cobb that it cannot. Florida asserts jurisdiction under section 910.006(3), Florida Statutes: (3) SPECIAL MARITIME CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.The special maritime criminal jurisdiction of the state extends to acts or omissions on board a ship outside of the state under any of the following circumstances: * *...
...t), even if Florida, a non-signatory of the treaty, could avail itself of treaty exceptions, the use of an American port and the percentage of persons who embark or disembark at such port are not among those exceptions. The State invites us to amend section 910.006(3)(d) by restricting its application to only non-Florida, United States' nationals (Florida residents and citizens are covered by section 910.006(3)(a) and that section is not involved herein)....
