Florida law allows non-prior service civilians to wear mil. uniforms in public!!

[CougarKing]

What? :

"http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20858"

A Florida law prohibiting people from wearing military uniforms unless they are military servicemembers violates the First Amendment because it bars a substantial amount of protected speech, a Florida appeals court has ruled.

The case arose out of an incident at Orlando International Airport in May 2007. Fernando Montas wore a U.S. Army uniform while standing in an expedited security line for military and security personnel. A Transportation Security Administration agent at the airport noticed that Montas’ hair seemed much longer than that of someone in the military and asked him to produce a military ID. When Montas could not produce one, he was arrested and charged with violating Florida law.

In part, the law said a person not in the military commits a misdemeanor if he or she wears a military uniform and is not a member of that branch of the armed forces. The statute provides exemptions for actors wearing uniforms in theatrical performances, for cadets in any military school and for members of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

Montas claimed that the statute violated his First Amendment and due-process rights. He contended that he wore the uniform to express his support for members of his family who are in the military. A state trial court agreed with Montas and ruled that the statute violated his constitutional rights.

The state appealed and on Oct. 31, 2008, a Florida appeals court affirmed the lower court decision. The three-judge appeals court ruled in State v. Montas that the statute was overbroad, writing that the law “would criminalize a child wearing his parent’s Army boots or a person wearing an imitation military uniform for Halloween.”

The appeals court agreed that the state had a compelling government interest in “ensuring that the public is not deceived by people impersonating members of the military.” However, the court reasoned that the “statute has the potential to criminalize wholly innocent conduct, and is not narrowly tailored to address its goal.”

The court said the statute also did not include a specific intent requirement: “It contains no requirement that the action be taken with the intent to deceive a reasonable person or in an effort to impersonate a member of the military.”

The court relied in part for its ruling on other Florida court decisions that invalidated a Florida law prohibiting people from the unauthorized wearing of a police badge or other law enforcement insignia. Those decisions — including one by the Florida Supreme Court — noted that the police-insignia law also prohibited much innocent conduct and failed to contain a specific-intent requirement.

 

[Strike]

In part, the law said a person not in the military commits a misdemeanor if he or she wears a military uniform and is not a member of that branch of the armed forces. The statute provides exemptions for actors wearing uniforms in theatrical performances, for cadets in any military school and for members of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

What they should have done was arrested him for impersonating a military member, or falsely presenting himself as a military member, not JUST because he was wearing the uniform, but because he was in the line for military members.

 

[PMedMoe]

Violates the First Amendment, nice.  :
Wearing a uniform is not "freedom of speech" and standing in a line for military and security service members is akin to trying to pre-board with the seniors/handicapped/parents with kids when you're young/able-bodied/childless.  Low!

 

[FoverF]

The court relied in part for its ruling on other Florida court decisions that invalidated a Florida law prohibiting people from the unauthorized wearing of a police badge or other law enforcement insignia.

hold on, now... it doesn't seem that pretending to be a cop is a problem either...

There's no emoticon to convey the noises I made when I read this one.

 

[dustinm]

This is a case of bad law writing. The court knows what the law was intended for, but they also know what it stands as written. Canada (or at least Ontario) has had similr problems.

Before (1999?) if someone forged your housing documents and took a new mortgage out on your house, the homeowner is responsible for the repayment of it. This was because the case that brought along that law involved a spouse who had taken out a new mortgage on her and her husband's jointly-owned home via forgery.

In this case, Florida has to deal with the poorly written law; hopefully they draft a new law that actually mentions intent this time, and get it passed.

 

[CountDC]

I don't see a problem with the law as written - more the weak judges in the system these days.  What's wrong with making the law plain and simple - it is illegal for someone that is not a member of the military to wear a current military uniform (with the clause for actors)? That's the way it should be - what good reason would anyone not in the military have to wear one? Support their family? - do that by respecting the uniform and not wearing it. Intent?? How about the intent was to wear a military uniform that they are not legally allowed to wear.

Freedom of speech?  What does that have to do with wearing a uniform?? Does this mean we can run around buck naked because we wish to express our freedom of speech?

 

[GDawg]

This brings 2 questions to my mind:

1. What was going to happen when this individual reached the end of the line? I assume he would have to produce some sort of military id.

2. Can I use that line?

From personal experience I've found that when I've been asked to state my employer in the customs/immigration lines at international airports things have gone swift and smooth in the US, Canada, and the Netherlands.