Rollins v. State - 354 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1978)

Rule:

For a statutory classification to satisfy the equal protection clauses found in our organic documents, it must rest on some difference that bears a just and reasonable relation to the statute in respect to which the classification is proposed.

Facts:

Appellant Leon James Rollins was arrested at an establishment known as South Florida Billiards which he owned and operated. He was charged with a violation of Fla. Stat. ch. 849.06 (1975), which criminalized permitting anyone under the age of 21, other than those in the armed services, to frequent any billiard hall other than in so-called bona fide bowling establishments. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, in which he argued that the statute was arbitrary and discriminatory upon its face and was violative of both due process and equal protection, in that it arbitrarily proscribed and punished conduct which was not proscribed or punished for persons engaged in the same profession, business or activities at other locations. Specifically, appellant alleged that owners or employees of billiard parlors were subject to the proscriptions of the statute while owners or employees of bona fide bowling establishments were not. The motion was denied. The court adjudicated appellant guilty. Appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional on its face as a denial of his right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.

Issue:

Was Fla. Stat. ch. 849.06 (1975) unconstitutional, thereby warranting the reversal of appellant’s conviction?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The state supreme court vacated appellant's conviction, finding ch. 849.06 to be violative of both the federal and state constitutions. The court reasoned that in order to survive equal protection analysis the state's classification was required to rest on a distinction which bore a just and reasonable relation to the statute in respect to the classification proposed. According to the court, Fla. Stat. ch. 849.06 (1975), in prohibiting those under 21 from patronizing billiard halls but not bowling alleys where billiards was played, established an irrational distinction which could not survive constitutional analysis. The court noted that even if billiard halls were frequented by an undesirable element from whom those under the age of 21 were required to be protected, that element was just as likely to frequent a bowling alley.