This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM
DATE: 2/5/2022
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 1571 Residential Picketing
SPONSOR(S): Maggard and others
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/SB 1664
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Criminal Justice & Public Safety Subcommittee Frost Hall
2) Judiciary Committee
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
In recent years, highly publicized events involving political figures, persons accused of committing crimes, and
celebrities have often resulted in large public gatherings outside the homes of the persons of interest. Both
Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott have experienced such gatherings outside their private residences, and
the local Mayors of Chicago and Portland have likewise drawn large gatherings at their private homes. In
Orlando, groups gathered outside the home owned by the officer later convicted of the murder of George
Floyd, with one local resident summarizing “about 50 people showed up to the neighborhood, honking horns
and yelling until around 3:30 a.m.” In Brevard county, the home of a school board member was targeted, and in
North Port, large groups of individuals gathered outside the home of the parents and neighbors of suspected
murderer, Brian Laundrie.
Florida law currently criminalizes a number of activities relating to trespassing on specified property and
unlawful assemblies, but does not specifically prohibit nonviolent gatherings of persons in the public areas of
residential neighborhoods, unless such gathering takes place during specified periods of time before or after a
funeral or burial.
HB 1571 provides that Florida has a significant interest in protecting the tranquility and privacy of the home and
protecting citizens from the detrimental effect of targeted picketing, and that the Supreme Court of the United
States has recognized this interest by upholding a challenged ordinance restricting residential picketing in
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988). The bill creates s. 810.15, F.S., to prohibit a person from picketing or
protesting before or about a person’s dwelling with the intent to harass or disturb a person, unless such
picketing or protest is in compliance with a county or municipal ordinance authorizing residential picketing or
protesting. An offense of residential picketing is punishable as follows:
For a first offense, as a noncriminal violation which requires the offender to perform 16 hours of
community service or pay a $25 fine.
For a second or subsequent offense, as a second degree misdemeanor.
The bill specifies that a person charged with a noncriminal violation for a first residential picketing offense must
receive a civil citation and must either pay the required fine or appear before the county court. If a person
elects to appear before the court, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the person committed
the offense. If the court determines the person committed the offense, the court must impose the penalty of 16
hours of community service or a $25 fine.
Under the bill, a person who participates in community service as a penalty for committing an offense of
residential picketing is considered an employee of the state for the duration of the time he or she completes
such community service for the purposes of worker’s compensation under ch. 440, F.S.
The bill may have a positive indeterminate fiscal impact on local government entities which may receive
revenues from the $25 fine imposed for a first violation of residential picketing. The bill may have a positive
insignificant impact on jail beds by creating the new second degree misdemeanor offense of residential
picketing.
The bill provides an effective date of October 1, 2022. STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM PAGE: 2
DATE: 2/5/2022
FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Background
In recent years, highly publicized events involving political figures, persons accused of committing
crimes, and celebrities have often resulted in large public gatherings outside the homes of persons of
interest. Both Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott have experienced such gatherings outside their
private residences,
1
and the local Mayors of Chicago and Portland have likewise drawn large
gatherings at their private homes.
2,
3
In Florida, groups gathered outside an Orlando home owned by
the officer later convicted of the murder of George Floyd,
4
the home of a Brevard county school board
member was targeted regarding mixed opinions on school mask mandates, and in North Port, large
groups of individuals gathered outside the home of the parents and neighbors of suspected murderer,
Brian Laundrie.
5
Florida law currently criminalizes a number of activities relating to trespassing on specified property and
unlawful assemblies, but does not specifically prohibit nonviolent gatherings of persons in public areas
of residential neighborhoods, unless such gathering takes place during specified periods of time before
or after a funeral or burial.
6
Trespass
Chapter 810, F.S., prohibits a variety of acts relating to trespassing in or on the property of others. For
example:
Under s. 810.08, F.S., a person commits a second degree misdemeanor
7
if he or she willfully
enters or remains in any structure
8
or conveyance,
9
without being authorized, licensed, or
invited, or, after having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee
of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and he or she
refuses to do so.
10
Under s. 810.09, F.S., a person commits a first degree misdemeanor
11
if he or she willfully
enters or remains on any property other than a structure or conveyance, without being
authorized, licensed, or invited:
1
Jacob Ogles, Protesters to convene on Marco Rubio’s, Rick Scott’s homes to demand challenge to Joe Biden win, Florida Politics
(Jan. 1, 2021), https://floridapolitics.com/archives/405357-protesters-to-convene-on-marco-rubios-rick-scotts-homes-to-demand-
challenge-to-joe-biden-win/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2022). See also, Lautaro Grinspan, Trump supporters gather in front of Marco Rubio’s
West Miami home. ‘You work for us,’ The Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2021) https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jan/03/trump-
supporters-gather-in-front-of-marco-rubios-w/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
2
Madeline Holcombe, Chicago protesters rally at mayor’s house a day after clashes with police, CNN (Jul. 19, 2020),
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/19/us/chicago-protest-lori-lightfoot/index.html (last visited Feb.5, 2022).
3
Sources indicate that the Portland Mayor planned to move out of his apartment due to the targeted protests at his home. Andrew Hay,
Portland mayor to leave home targeted by protestors, Reuters (Sept. 2, 2020) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-usa-
protests-portland/portland-mayor-to-leave-home-targeted-by-protesters-idUSKBN25T32R (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
4
Protesters remain at Orlando-area home owned by officer connected to George Floyd’s death, Fox 35 Orlando (May 30, 2020),
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/protesters-remain-at-orlando-area-home-owned-by-officer-connected-to-george-floyds-death (last
visited Feb. 5, 2022).
5
See Elisha Fieldstadt, Florida school board member who supports masks says people told her to 'beg for mercy,' NBC News (Oct. 13,
2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-board-member-who-supports-masks-classrooms-says-people-n1281408
(last visited Feb. 5, 2022); and Franklin White, Protesters outside Laundrie’s house demand answers from parents saying they knew
more, WSVN NEWS MIAMI (Oct. 22, 2021), https://wsvn.com/news/local/protesters-outside-laundries-house-demand-answers-from-
parents-saying-they-knew-more/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
6
S. 871.015, F.S.
7
A second degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 60 days in county jail and a $500 fine. Ss. 775.082 and 775.083, F.S.
8
Section 810.011(1), F.S., defines “structure” as a building of any kind.
9
Section 810.011(3), F.S., defines “conveyance” as any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad vehicle or car, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping
car.
10
This section increases the penalty for an offense to a first degree misdemeanor or a third degree felony in specified circumstances.
See s. 810.08(2)(b) and (c), F.S.
11
A first degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine. Ss. 775.082 and 775.083, F.S. STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM PAGE: 3
DATE: 2/5/2022
o When he or she has been provided notice against entering or remaining either by actual
communication or by posting, fencing, or cultivation;
12
or
o If the property is the unenclosed curtilage
13
of a dwelling
14
and the offender enters or
remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass.
Generally, a trespass offense is a misdemeanor. However, the penalties relating to a trespass offense
may be increased when the offense involves specified types of property. For example, it is a third
degree felony
15
to trespass on designated construction sites, commercial horticulture properties,
agricultural chemical manufacturing facilities, and the operational area of an airport with specified
intent.
16
Such properties must have posted warnings that contain specific language identifying the
property as a protected type of property.
17
When used within ch. 810, F.S., the term “dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind,
including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile
or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night,
together with the curtilage thereof. However, during the time of a state of emergency declared by
executive order or proclamation of the Governor under ch. 252, F.S., and within the area covered by
such executive order or proclamation and for purposes of ss. 810.02 and 810.08, F.S., only, the term
includes such portions or remnants thereof as exist at the original site, regardless of absence of a wall
or roof.
18
Unlawful Assembly
Section 870.02, F.S., prohibits three or more persons from meeting together to commit a breach of the
peace or any other unlawful act.
19
A violation for unlawful assembly is a second degree misdemeanor.
20
A person commits a breach of the peace by:
Committing any act which may:
o Corrupt the public morals,
o Outrage the sense of public decency, or
o Affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them; or
Engaging in:
o Brawling or fighting,
o Conduct which constitutes a breach of the peace, or
o Disorderly conduct.
21
The Florida Supreme Court (FSC) has relied on the common law definition of an unlawful assembly to
define which elements must be alleged for the offense to pass constitutional muster. Persons
participating in an unlawful assembly commit a breach of the peace when: an assembly of three or
more persons who, having a common unlawful purpose, assemble in such a manner as to give a
reasonable person in the vicinity of the assembly a well-founded fear of a breach of the peace.
22
12
Section 810.011(6), F.S., defines “cultivated land” as that land which has been cleared of its natural vegetation and is presently
planted with a crop, orchard, grove, pasture, or trees or is fallow land as part of a crop rotation.
13
Section 810.09(1)(b), F.S., defines "curtilage" as the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and
intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.
14
S. 810.011(2), F.S., defines “dwelling” as a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building
or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people
lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof.
15
A third degree felony is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Ss. 775.082 and 775.083, F.S.
16
S. 810.09(2)(d)1., (e), (i), and (j), F.S.
17
S. 810.09(2), F.S.
18
S. 810.011(2), F.S.
19
Section 870.03, F.S., similarly prohibits an unlawful assembly from demolishing, pulling down or destroying, or beginning to pull down
or destroy any dwelling house or other building, or any ship or vessel. A violation is a third degree felony punishable by up to five years
in prison and a $5,000 fine. Ss. 775.082 and 775.083, F.S.
20
Ss. 775.082 and 775.083, F.S.
21
S. 877.03, F.S.
22
State v. Simpson, 347 So.2d 414, 415 (Fla. 1977). STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM PAGE: 4
DATE: 2/5/2022
Applying this definition, the FSC has held that prohibiting an assembly whose purpose is to commit a
breach of the peace is not a violation of the First Amendment.
23
Unlawful Protests at a Funeral or Burial
Section 871.015, F.S., prohibits a person from engaging in any protest activities or knowingly causing
protest activities to occur within 500 feet of the property line of a residence, cemetery, funeral home,
house of worship, or other location during or within 1 hour before or 1 hour after the conducting of a
funeral or burial at such location. However, s. 871.015, F.S., specifies that the offense does not prohibit
protest activities occurring adjacent to the portion of a funeral procession which extends beyond 500
feet of the property line of the location of the funeral or burial.
For purposes of unlawful protests, the term “protest activities” means any action, including picketing,
which is undertaken with the intent to interrupt or disturb a funeral or burial.
24
Picketing
Picketing occurs when a person or a group of people stands, marches, or patrols inside, in front of, or
about any premise with the intent to persuade an occupant or patron of the premise regarding some
point of view or to protest an action, attitude, or belief.
25
The United States Supreme Court (USSC), in
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 482 (1988), upheld a Brookfield, Wisconsin city ordinance which made
it “unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any
individual in the Town of Brookfield.” The Court upheld the ordinance as constitutional and rejected
claims that the ordinance prohibited constitutionally protected First Amendment activity. Specifically, the
USSC held that the use of the words “dwelling” and “residence” in the ordinance suggested that such
ordinance was appropriately limited to regulate certain conduct at particular residences and was not
overbroad so as to unconstitutionally limit picketing through the whole residential area.
Constitutional Requirements
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law ...
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
26
The rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment apply with equal force to state governments through the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
27
The rights to acquire, possess, and protect private property are basic
principles afforded under both the U. S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution. While the government
has an interest in protecting private property rights, those interests must also coincide with other basic
legal protections, such as the freedom to assemble. While First Amendment interests are broadly
protected, courts have recognized that state and local authorities may broadly use their “police
powers”
28
to protect the rights of individuals during confrontational protests.
The USSC has found, for example, that certain regulations, including a 36-foot buffer zone restricting
protestors at the entrance to an abortion clinic were justified by the government’s interest in allowing
the clinic to remain operational and allowing patients to walk in without close physical confrontations.
29
The Court has recognized that some protests effect the rights of others, specifically commenting that “if
overamplified loudspeakers assault the citizenry, government may turn them down.”
30
23
Id.
24
S. 871.015(2), F.S.
25
Clyde E. Willis, Picketing, Middle Tennessee State University First Amendment Encyclopedia (2009), https://mtsu.edu/first-
amendment/article/1136/picketing (last visited Feb. 5, 2022).
26
U.S. Const., amend. I.
27
U.S. Const. amend. XIV. See also Article I, Fla. Const.
28
Local and State officials have broad powers to create laws for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. See
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, police powers, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers (last visited Feb. 5,
2022).
29
Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 768-71 (1994).
30
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116 (1972). STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM PAGE: 5
DATE: 2/5/2022
In summary, courts have recognized the government’s ability to “to shut off discourse solely to protect
others from hearing it depends upon whether a substantial privacy interest is being invaded in an
essentially intolerable manner.”
31
Effect of Proposed Changes
HB 1571 provides that Florida has a significant interest in protecting the tranquility and privacy of the
home and protecting citizens from the detrimental effect of targeted picketing, and that the Supreme
Court of the United States has recognized this interest by upholding a challenged ordinance restricting
residential picketing in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).
The bill creates s. 810.15, F.S., to prohibit a person from picketing or protesting before or about a
person’s dwelling
32
with the intent to harass or disturb a person, unless such picketing or protest is in
compliance with a county or municipal ordinance authorizing residential picketing or protesting.
An offense of residential picketing is punishable as follows:
For a first offense, as a noncriminal violation which requires the offender to perform 16 hours of
community service or pay a $25 fine.
For a second or subsequent offense, as a second degree misdemeanor.
The bill specifies that a person charged with a noncriminal violation for a first residential picketing
offense must receive a civil citation and must either pay the required fine or appear before the county
court. If a person elects to appear before a court, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether
the person committed the offense. If the court determines the person committed the offense, the court
must impose the penalty of 16 hours of community service or a $25 fine.
Under the bill, a person who participates in community service as a penalty for committing an offense of
residential picketing is considered an employee of the state the entire time he or she completes such
community service for the purposes of worker’s compensation under ch. 440, F.S.
The bill provides an effective date of October 1, 2022.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Creates s. 810.015, F.S., residential picketing.
Section 2: Provides an effective date of October 1, 2022.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
31
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971).
32
When used within ch. 810, F.S., the term “dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch,
whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be
occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof. However, during the time of a state of emergency
declared by executive order or proclamation of the Governor under chapter 252 and within the area covered by such executive order or
proclamation and for purposes of ss. 810.02 and 810.08 only, the term includes such portions or remnants thereof as exist at the
original site, regardless of absence of a wall or roof. Because the new section of law created under the bill falls within ch. 810, F.S., this
definition of “dwelling” will apply. STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM PAGE: 6
DATE: 2/5/2022
1. Revenues:
The bill may have a positive indeterminate fiscal impact on local government entities which may
receive revenues from the $25 fine imposed for a first violation of residential picketing.
2. Expenditures:
The bill may have a positive insignificant impact on jail beds by creating the new second degree
misdemeanor offense of residential picketing. The impact will likely be insignificant as potential
offenders may currently be charged with other crimes under similar statutes such as unlawful
assembly, trespass, or breach of the peace.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
None.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS:
None.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
Not applicable. The bill does not appear to affect county or municipal governments.
2. Other:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law ...
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
33
The rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment apply with equal force to state governments through the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
34
Speech regulations are generally analyzed as to whether they are content-based or content-neutral.
A content-based law targets speech based on its content and is subject to strict scrutiny, while a
content-neutral law regulates the time, place, and manner of expression, without regard to the
substance or message, and is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Content-based laws are
presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are
narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
35
Whereas, content-neutral laws need only be
tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of
communication.
HB 1571 may impose place and manner restrictions by prohibiting a person from picketing or
protesting before or about a person’s dwelling with the intent to harass or disturb a person, unless
such picketing or protest is in compliance with a county or municipal ordinance authorizing
residential picketing or protesting. However, the restrictions are content-neutral and would likely be
found to be narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest in protecting the tranquility and
privacy of the home and protecting citizens from the detrimental effect of targeted picketing, in line
with the USSC’s ruling in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).
33
U.S. Const., amend. I.
34
U.S. Const. amend. XIV. See also Article I, Fla. Const.
35
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163, 135 S.Ct. 2218, 192 L.Ed.2d 236 (2015). STORAGE NAME: h1571.CRM PAGE: 7
DATE: 2/5/2022
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
None.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES