Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)

Last updated

Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 1, 2012
Decided January 15, 2013
Full case nameFane Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida
Docket no. 11-626
Citations568 U.S. 115 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorCity of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, 649 F.3d 1259 (2011)
Holding
A vessel is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for transportation on water. Lozman's floating home was not a vessel.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kennedy
Laws applied
Rules of Construction Act

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a vessel in admiralty law is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for water transportation. The case arose from an in rem suit brought under admiralty jurisdiction by the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, against a floating home owned by resident Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that the floating home, which had no means by which to propel itself, was not a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act and thus not subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Court resolved a circuit split as to what it means for a vessel to be "capable" of transportation by creating the reasonable observer standard, ruling in Lozman's favor.

Contents

The case was noted for the amusing factual question presented, which caused Chief Justice John Roberts to describe it as his favorite case of the term, and for the context of the dispute between Lozman and Riviera Beach: The two parties were involved in a number of related legal disputes, and Lozman proceeded pro se for part of the litigation. Lozman and the city returned to the Supreme Court in 2018 regarding Lozman's arrest at a city council meeting; the court held for Lozman that time as well.

Background

Prior jurisprudence

Title 1, Chapter 1 of the United States Code (also known as the Rules of Construction Act [1] or Dictionary Act [2] ) states: [3]

The word "vessel" includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.

In Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. in 2005, the United States Supreme Court interpreted this to encompass "any watercraft practically capable of maritime transportation, regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment", [4] but did not address whether a structure's intended use had a bearing on whether it should be considered a vessel. [5] In De La Rosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted Stewart as allowing such considerations, and ruled that a floating casino was not a vessel since its owners had no intention to use it for transportation, [6] while in Bd. of Comm'rs of the Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans the Eleventh Circuit held the opposite: "The owner's intentions with regard to a boat are analogous to the boat's 'purpose,' and Stewart clearly rejected any definition of 'vessel' that relies on such a purpose." [7] [8]

That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length

After activist Fane Lozman successfully sued to prevent the city from using eminent domain to seize properties along the waterfront, [9] the city brought an in rem suit against Lozman's floating home under federal admiralty law, seeking a maritime lien for dockage fees and damages for trespass. Lozman responded pro se to the suit, City of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length. He argued that his floating home, which had no way to propel itself, was not a "vessel" under the Rules of Construction Act, and that the District Court for the Southern District of Florida thus lacked admiralty jurisdiction. The district court rejected this argument and found that Lozman owed the city $3,000 under the lien. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the decision, citing past precedent that "the status of 'vessel' does not depend in any way on either the purpose for which the craft was constructed or its intended use." [10] The district court ordered Lozman to sell the floating home. The city bought it at auction and destroyed it. [11]

Petition for certiorari

The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length (and Belle of Orleans before it) created a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit's holding in De La Rosa as to whether a structure's purpose matters for determining whether it is a vessel. [8]

Lozman chose not to continue pro se, and instead sought as counsel Jeffrey L. Fisher of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic after googling "appellate lawyers". Fisher works primarily in criminal law, but had experience with maritime cases such as Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker . [12] Fisher filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted in February 2012. [13] [11]

At the Supreme Court

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were held on 1 October 2012. Fisher advocated a standard that focuses on a vessel's purpose. He highlighted Lozman's home's unsuitability to transport people or goods, noting its "French doors on three sides a few feet above the water line" and lack of independent source of power or movement. [12] [14] Justice Samuel Alito objected to Fisher's distinction between "purpose" and "function" on the basis that the statute "says nothing about purpose". [12] [15]

Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, argued on behalf of the United States that the justices should look to whether an indefinitely moored structure had ever been a vessel. [12]

David C. Frederick, representing Riviera Beach, argued for a simple definition based on a "practical capability to float, move and carry goods or people". [16] Several justices responded with examples of objects that might meet this definition but would not typically be considered vessels, such as an inner tube (Chief Justice John Roberts) or a styrofoam sofa (Justice Stephen Breyer). [12]

Justice Anthony Kennedy at one point referred to the floating home as a "magnificent structure ... which was mercifully destroyed", which drew laughter from the crowd. [17] Lozman later said that he had come close to walking out of the courtroom over the remark. [18]

Opinion of the court

In a 7–2 decision written by Justice Breyer, the court ruled on 15 January 2013 in favor of a reasonable observer test for determining whether a structure is "capable of being used as a means of transportation on water" and is thus a vessel: [1] [19]

Not every floating structure is a "vessel." To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not "vessels," even if they are "artificial contrivance[s]" capable of floating, moving under tow, and incidentally carrying even a fair-sized item or two when they do so. ... Consequently, in our view a structure does not fall within the scope of this statutory phrase unless a reasonable observer, looking to the home’s physical characteristics and activities, would consider it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.

The court then considered Lozman's floating home under that standard. Breyer emphasized that "But for the fact that it floats, nothing about Lozman's home suggests that it was designed to any practical degree to transport persons or things over water", and highlighted several attributes which made it ill-suited for those tasks. [20] On that basis, the court found that it was not a vessel and reversed the Eleventh Circuit. [21] The opinion drew a distinction between floating homes like Lozman's and houseboats that are capable of propelling themselves. [21] [20]

Sotomayor's dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kennedy. She began by noting that she "agree[d] with much of the Court's reasoning" and characterizing the Eleventh Circuit's test as "overinclusive". However, she criticized the introduction of a reasonable observer test as going against maritime industries' need for "clear and predictable legal rules for determining which ships are vessels." [21] [22] She further felt that the record was not clear enough to conclude that Lozman's home was not a vessel, and argued that the matter should have been instead remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration. [21]

Impact and subsequent developments

The decision in Lozman was taken as definitive with respect to whether floating homes—as distinct from houseboats capable of self-propulsion—are vessels under admiralty law, [23] but less so in other regards. [24] David R. Maass, writing in the Florida Law Review , criticized the reasonable observer test as making matters uncertain for lower courts; [25] Kathryn D. Yankowski, writing in the University of Miami Law Review , acknowledged this as "potentially problematic" but saw Lozman as a "fundamental addition" to maritime law that clarified the test lower courts should use. [26]

Chief Justice Roberts referred to the case as his favorite of the 2012 term, and emphasized the impact of seeing a picture of the floating home, which he described as looking like "a house that got swept into the ocean somehow". [27]

After winning at the Supreme Court, Lozman sought $270,000 in damages from the city for the loss of his floating home. A federal judge instead ordered that the city pay $7,500. [28] [29] The Eleventh Circuit upheld the ruling on appeal, [30] and the Supreme Court denied a mandamus petition in April 2017. [31] [32]

Lozman's litigation against Riviera Beach regarding his floating home occurred parallel to suit alleging that his 2006 arrest at a city council meeting had been retaliatory. That case, also called Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach , reached the Supreme Court in 2018. The Supreme Court again held in Lozman's favor, allowing the suit to proceed. [33]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Riviera Beach, Florida</span> City in Florida, United States

Riviera Beach is a city in Palm Beach County, Florida, United States, which was incorporated on September 29, 1922. Due to the location of its eastern boundary, it is also the easternmost municipality in the Miami metropolitan area. In the 2020 U.S. Census, the total population of Riviera Beach residents was 37,604 people.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle to be searched as well. The appeals court had previously ruled that opening and searching the closed portable containers without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though the warrantless vehicle search was permissible due to existing precedent.

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is or is about to be seriously injured.

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether state counties enjoyed sovereign immunity from private lawsuits authorized by federal law. The case involved an admiralty claim by an insurer against Chatham County, Georgia for its negligent operation of a drawbridge. The Court ruled unanimously that the county had no basis for claiming immunity because it was not acting as an "arm of the state."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

Jeffrey L. Fisher is an American law professor and U.S. Supreme Court litigator who has argued forty-one cases and worked on dozens of others before the Supreme Court. He is co-director of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mosaic theory (US law)</span> Legal theory about admissible evidence

The mosaic theory is a legal doctrine in American courts for considering issues of information collection, government transparency, and search and seizure, especially in cases involving invasive or large-scale data collection by government entities. The theory takes its name from mosaic tile art: while an entire picture can be seen from a mosaic's tiles at a distance, no clear picture emerges from viewing a single tile in isolation. The mosaic theory calls for a cumulative understanding of data collection by law enforcement and analyzes searches "as a collective sequence of steps rather than individual steps."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case which analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog. In a 6–3 opinion, the Court held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. However, the Court remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to determine whether the officer's extension of the traffic stop was independently justified by reasonable suspicion. Some analysts have suggested that the Court's decision to limit police authority was influenced by ongoing protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the applicability of Fourth Amendment protections to searches and seizures that occur on buses, as well as the function of consent during searches by law enforcement. During a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida, police officers boarded a Greyhound bus as part of a drug interdiction effort and interviewed passengers. After talking to two of the passengers and asking if they could "check [their] person", officers discovered the two passengers had taped several packages of cocaine to their legs. At trial, the passengers argued that officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because the police engaged in coercive behavior and never informed them that their participation in the drug interdiction efforts was voluntary.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

Fane Lozman is an American inventor and futures and options trader known for his long-running legal battles with the city of Riviera Beach, Florida. His litigation against the city has reached the U.S. Supreme Court twice: a 2013 case about whether a floating home is a vessel and a 2018 case about retaliatory arrest for protected speech. The court ruled in his favor in both cases.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with nominal damages to be awarded to individuals whose right to freedom of speech has been suppressed by an entity but subsequently rendered moot due to intervening circumstances. In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that such nominal damages satisfy the Article Three requirement of redressability, when awarded for a past violation of a legal rights.

Fane Lozman and the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, have been parties to a number of lawsuits, two of which have been heard by the United States Supreme Court.

A retaliatory arrest or retaliatory prosecution is an arrest or prosecution undertaken in retaliation for a person's exercise of their civil rights. It is a form of prosecutorial misconduct.

Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<i>Novak v. City of Parma</i> 2022 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Novak v. City of Parma, No. 21-3290, is a 2022 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granting qualified immunity to the city of Parma, Ohio, and its officials for prosecuting Anthony Novak over a Facebook page that parodied the Parma Police Department's page. The case drew widespread attention when The Onion, a satirical newspaper, filed a humorous but sincere amicus curiae brief supporting Novak's petition to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari; that petition was denied in February 2023.

References

  1. 1 2 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568U.S.115 , 118(2013).
  2. ↑ David Maass, If It Looks Like a Vessel: The Supreme Court's 'Reasonable Observer' Test for Vessel Status , 65 Fla. L. Rev. 895, 895 (2014).
  3. ↑ 1 U.S.C.   § 3
  4. ↑ Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543U.S.481 (2005).
  5. ↑ Maass, supra, at 896.
  6. ↑ De La Rosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., 474F.3d185 (5th Cir.2006).
  7. ↑ Bd. of Comm'rs of the Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans, 535F.3d1299 , 1311(11th Cir.2008).
  8. 1 2 Maass, supra, at 901.
  9. ↑ Glenn Garvin,  He's a Marine, a renegade, a vanquisher of corrupt pols. And now: First Amendment icon. , The Miami Herald  (13 January 2018; archived copy ).
  10. ↑ City of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, 649F.3rd1259 (11th Cir.2011).
  11. 1 2 Jesse D. H. Snyder, What Fane Lozman Can Teach Us About Free Speech , 19 Wyo. L. Rev. 419, 441 (2019).
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Lyle Denniston,  Argument recap: If it floats, so what? , SCOTUSblog  (1 October 2012).
  13. ↑ Amy Howe,  This week's grants: In Plain English , SCOTUSblog  (23 February 2012).
  14. ↑ Tr. of Oral Arg., Lozman, 568 U.S. 115, at 58:54. [Hereinafter Lozman Arg. Tr.]
  15. ↑ Lozman Arg. Tr., supra, at 8:35.
  16. ↑ Lozman Arg. Tr., supra, at 36:16.
  17. ↑ Lozman Arg. Tr., supra, at 4:40.
  18. ↑ Robert Barnes,  A Florida provocateur has his day before the U.S. Supreme Court—again , Wash. Post  (February 25, 2018).
  19. ↑ Lozman, 568 U.S. 115, 120–121.
  20. 1 2 Lozman, 568 U.S. 115, 121–122.
  21. 1 2 3 4 Robert Barnes,  Floating home is not vessel, Supreme Court says , Wash. Post  (15 January 2013).
  22. ↑ Lozman, 568 U.S. 115, 143. Sotomayor, J., dissenting.
  23. ↑ Kathryn Yankowski, Whatever Floats the 'Reasonable Observer's' Boat: An Examination of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla. and the Supreme Court's Ruling That Floating Homes Are Not Vessels , 67 U. Miami L. Rev. 975, 977 (2013).
  24. ↑ Yankowski, supra, at 995. "As the dissent in Lozman points out, the majority's use of the term 'reasonable observer' will inevitably add confusion and subjectivity to the vessel standard."
  25. ↑ Maass, supra, at 906.
  26. ↑ Yankowski, supra, at 1003.
  27. ↑ Fourth Judicial Conference, Justice John Roberts talks about the Lozman case , C-SPAN  (19 August 2013).
  28. ↑ Jane Musgrave,  Magistrate: Riviera Beach owes $6,700 [sic], not $270K, for floating home it took from Fane Lozeman , The Palm Beach Post  (21 February 2014) ("For those and other reasons, Magistrate Lurana Snow is recommending that the city of Riviera Beach should pay Fane Lozman $7,500 for his former home—roughly $260,000 less than the former Marine is seeking.").
  29. ↑ Jane Musgrave,  Federal judge refuses to order Riviera Beach to pay Fane Lozman to replace destroyed floating home , The Palm Beach Post  (27 March 2014; archived copy ).
  30. ↑ City of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, No. 15-15442 (11th Cir.2016).
  31. ↑ In Re Fane Lozman, Pet'r, No. 16-990 (U.S.2017).
  32. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court rejects floating home appeal , WPTV  (17 April 2017).
  33. ↑ Synder, supra, at 445.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.