News & Editorial

The Trial

The Law

Misinformation

Message Boards

Islam & The Niqab

Email

Florida Non-Commercial Driver's Licenses Do Not Require a Photo

Pursuant to Section 322.14, Florida Statutes., the department, upon successful completion of all required examinations and payment of required fees, shall issue a license to the applicant. It is undisputed in this case that Mrs. Freeman has completed all required applications and has paid all required fees for obtaining a Florida driver's license. Therefore, the The Florida DMV was under an obligation to issue Mrs. Freeman a driver's license.

Section 322.14, Florida Statutes, specifically holds that the only individuals that must appear for a photograph or digital image, are drivers who are to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license. Section 322.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in part states as follows:

Applicants qualifying to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license must appear in person within the state for issuance of a color photographic or digital image driver's license pursuant to § 322.142.

Mrs. Freeman does not now hold, has never held, and has never requested to hold, a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license.

Class A, Class B, and Class C driver's licenses are designated as commercial driver's licenses under Florida law. See § 322.01(7), Fla. Stat.

Mrs. Freemans held a valid Class E (Non-Commercial) License.  A careful and plain reading of the Florida law shows that Florida law does not require the holder of a Class E driver's license to provide a fullface photograph.

§ 322.142, Fla. Stat., upon which The Florida DMV relies in this litigation, only requires a fullface photograph for holders of commercial driver's licenses.

Under the commonly used statutory construction principle of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, as the statute expressly requires certain classes to appear for a color photograph, it necessarily excludes others. Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Young v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company, 753 So.2d 80, 85 (Fla. 2000).

Any statutory construction must be done to effectuate all provisions and all language contained in the statute. Courts cannot construe statutory language to render it meaningless. See Beyel Brothers Crane and Rigging Company of South Florida v. ACE Transportation, Inc., 664 So.2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) and Weber v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 675 So.2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

This basic tenet of statutory construction requires the circuit court to not ignore language contained in the statute and not to add language not contained in the statute. Courts cannot construe statutory language to render it meaningless. See Beyel Brothers Crane and Rigging Company of South Florida v. ACE Transportation, Inc., 664 So.2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) and Weber v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 675 So.2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

The Florida DMV did not observe the essential requirements of law when it chose to cancel Mrs. Freeman's license. To make matters worse, the circuit court allowed the The Florida DMV to change its interpretation of the law and apply its new interpretation retroactively. Interpretation of statutes, like legislation, should operate prospectively. See State ex rel Bayless v. Lee, 23 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1945).

---