Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ordinances & Regulations: Indigent Representation
Ordinances & Regulations: Indigent Representation
ANALYSIS
The City argued that under Florida’s Constitution, funding
indigent representation is the exclusive responsibility of the State
because it is a “court-related function.” Fla. Const. Art. V, § 14.
The State argued that because the defendants were charged with
violations of a city ordinance and not a state criminal statute, the
City should pay for the indigent representation.
File: 38-3Ordinances.doc Created on: 6/10/2009 8:18:00 AM Last Printed: 7/7/2009 10:36:00 AM
SIGNIFICANCE
The court in Crowder held that the statutes implementing
Revision 7 are consistent with Article V, Section 14 of the Florida
Constitution. If a municipality decides to prosecute an indigent
defendant for a violation of its ordinance, not in connection with a
violation of state law, the municipality will be responsible for
funding counsel. Alternatively, a municipality may enter into an
agreement with the State’s Public Defender to represent indigent
defendants, provided that the city also funds such legislation.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
• 12A Fla. Jur. 2d Payment of Costs of Criminal Prosecutions
§ 21 (2007).
• Robert F. Williams, The Florida Constitution Revision Com-
mission in Historic and National Context, 50 Fla. L. Rev. 215
(1998).
Melissa Stok
ANALYSIS
Under the City’s ordinances, an arresting police officer is re-
quired to provide notice to the owner of the vehicle and any per-
son found to be in control of the vehicle at the time of the im-
poundment. The owner may request a preliminary hearing within
five days of receiving such notice in order to determine whether
File: 38-3Ordinances.doc Created on: 6/10/2009 8:18:00 AM Last Printed: 7/7/2009 10:36:00 AM
SIGNIFICANCE
Wellman analogizes the concepts of forfeiture and impound-
ment and makes clear that a local ordinance must provide the
rightful owner with adequate notice, must require a “clear and
convincing evidence” standard of proof, and must include an inno-
cent-owner exemption. Although the Court did not explicitly state
that these ordinances violated the Florida Forfeiture Act, it did
state that without the above requirements, such ordinances are
unconstitutional because they violate the Florida Constitution.
RESEARCH REFERENCE
• 12A Fla. Jur. 2d Counties § 59 (2005 & Supp. 2008).
Kelly Downer