Is a Statute Constitutional Even Though It Contains General Terms and Does Not Furnish Detailed Plans and Specifications ?
In v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980), the court found that a statute which penalized "trawling operations" that utilized more than one "trawl net" within "Charlotte County" was constitutional even though the Legislature had failed to define the quoted terms. See 387 So. 2d at 945-946.
The court reasoned that because the term "Charlotte County" could be ascertained by looking at a different statute which delineated the boundary lines of Charlotte County, and that because the terms "trawling operation" and "trawl net" could be defined by industry custom or by resort to a dictionary, the Legislature's failure to provide a definition did not render the statute unconstitutional. See id.
The Hagan court added that a statute may be constitutional "even though it contains general terms and does not furnish detailed plans and specifications of the act or conduct proscribed." 387 So. 2d at 946.