DUNEDIN, Fla. — The eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the City of Dunedin on Thursday and dominated that fining a house owner practically $30,000 for not chopping his grass doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on levying extreme fines.
This affirmed a decrease court ruling in opposition to Dunedin house owner James Ficken.
In a press release, Institute for Justice Attorney Ari Bargil, who argued the case on behalf of Ficken, mentioned the choice “will further embolden cities like Dunedin to impose crippling financial penalties against unsuspecting residents.”
“The court’s ruling accepted the argument that the Constitution supplies no safety from the imposition of limitless fines, assessed with out discover, that may attain hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of {dollars}—even for trivial issues like tall grass. It must be clear that fining a man into foreclosures for letting his grass get too lengthy is disproportionate to that offense. We’re hopeful that the total appeals court will see this case for what it’s and throw out this choice,” Bargil said.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
The opinion of the court states, “Ficken’s claims fail as a result of state legislation supplied him enough course of and the positive was not unconstitutionally extreme the place state legislation permitted a positive of as much as $500 a day for municipal-ordinance violations. We affirm the abstract judgment in favor of the City.”
Statement from the City of Dunedin:
“The City of Dunedin is dedicated to defending the well being and security of our residents, and private and non-private investments in the neighborhood by honest and equitable insurance policies constant with the relevant legislation.
While the City has prevailed on this Appeal case, along with the Federal District Court judgment in April 2021, the City continues to concentrate on code compliance insurance policies and procedures which serve our residents with information and steerage on compliance.
The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has issued a radical and detailed judgment endorsing the City’s authorized defenses to Mr. Ficken’s case. We recognize the time the Court took to fastidiously evaluation the file and authorized arguments to achieve its conclusions primarily based on an knowledgeable understanding of the related information and legislation. The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the City didn’t violate Mr. Ficken’s state or federal constitutional proper to due course of or impose illegal fines. This is constant with the authorized findings earlier than the City’s Code Enforcement Board and the Federal District Court ruling in April 2021.”
Read the total opinion under: