News & Editorial

The Trial

The Law

Misinformation

Message Boards

Islam & The Niqab

Email

The Obligations of the Department
Versus the Obligations of the Applicant

Although Section 322.142, Florida Statutes, does reference a "fullface photograph" (for commercial licenses only), it only does so in the context of the department's obligations.

A plain reading of the statute shows that it is the department which shall be required to provide certain items to the applicant. However, there is no correlating obligation on the part of the applicant to provide anything to the department. There can be no possibility of an assumed obligation by the Applicant, as one must look to the plain language of the statute to derive legislative intent. Hayes v. State of Florida, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1999).

A plain reading of the differing obligations of the Department versus the Applicant helps keep Section 322.142, Florida Statutes, consistent with Section 322.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as opposed to The Florida DMV's interpretation if the statute.

Just as The Florida DMV selectively ignored part of the language in Section 322.142, Florida Statutes, in order to advance its misinterpretation of the law, The Florida DMV ignored those parts of the statute which are inconvenient with regard to Section 322.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

The Florida DMV's interpretation of the statute is a misapplication of the law as it believes that the language contained in Section 322.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was meaningless. Statutory language is not to be assumed to be superfluous. A statute must be construed so as to give meaning to all words and phrases contained within the statue. See Terrinoni v. Westward Ho!, 418 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); United States v. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. Fla. 1999).

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 circuit court's embracement of these contradictory interpretations, is a misapplication of the law and shows that 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. The Florida DMV's new interpretation affected substantive rights of Mrs. Freeman. Interpretation of statutes, like legislation, should operate prospectively. See State ex rel Bayless v. Lee, 23 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1945).

---