Naturists & Florida Law


As naturists, we must always be aware of how the laws in the state of Florida regulate our activities. It is our intent to insure that all naturists are in compliance with Florida laws. For that reason we have now included, on our website, the Florida statute that applies to our activities. In the future, we will use this forum to keep you aware of any changes to this law.

800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.--It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083 (Up to one year imprisonment) A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

The following are Case Law Summaries involving the Court’s interpretation of

FS 800.03

Hoffman v. Carson
No. 40150 - Florida Supreme Court
July 7, 1971

"Because of the statute, the terms in question must be construed as necessarily relating to a lascivious exhibition of those private parts of a person which common propriety requires to be customarily kept covered in the presence of others. The construction necessarily applies also to the language 'or so to expose or exhibit his person in such place, or to go or be naked in such place'." S.800.03

Goodmakers v. State of Florida
No. 84-22 - District Court of Appeals (Second District)
May 11, 1984

3. Obscenity - "For there to be a violation of indecent exposure statute, there must be, coupled with mere nudity, a 'lascivious' exposition or exhibition of defendant's sexual organs."
4. Obscenity - "Lascivious" and "Lewd" exposition or exhibition of defendant's sexual organs within context of indecent exposure statute requires that perpetrator's exposition or exhibition involves unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence.
5. Defendant's conduct in being nude in place which was not set apart for that purpose, but while asleep or unconscious, motionless, and not in a state of arousal, did not constitute violation of indecent exposure statute.

Payne v. State of Florida
No. 84-1880 -District Court of Appeals (Second District)
October 26, 1984

"This case is controlled by our recent decision in Goodmakers v State. In Goodmakers, we held that in order for there to be a violation of section 800.03 there must be a lascivious exposure of a sexual organ."

Florida Statute FS 877.03

Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or 775.083.


 

The following are Case Law Summaries involving the Court’s interpretation of

 

FS 877.03

 

Wycre v. State of Florida
No. 77440 - Supreme Court of Florida
March 25, 1993

 

Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Hillborough County, Susan C. Bucklew, J., of loitering for purpose of prostitution and battery of law enforcement officer. The District Court of Appeal, 573 So.2d 953, affirmed in part and reversed in part and certified question. The Supreme Court, Barkett, C.J., held that city ordinance making it unlawful to loiter in manner and under circumstances manifesting purpose of engaging in acts of prostitution was unconstitutional.

 

1. Constitutional Law
Federal and State constitutional provisions protecting rights of persons to express themselves protect not only speech and written word, but also conduct intended to communicate.
2. Constitutional Law
First Amendment and Florida Constitution protect rights of persons to associate with whom they please and to assemble with others for political or for social purposes.
3. Constitutional Law
When lawmakers attempt to restrict or burden fundamental and basic constitutional rights, laws must not only be directed toward legitimate public purpose, but they must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
4. Constitutional Law
Statutes cannot be so broad that they prohibit constitutionally protected conduct as well as unprotected conduct.
5. Constitutional Law
When legislation is drafted so that it may be applied to conduct that is protected by First Amendment, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.
6. Constitutional Law
Overbreadth doctrine permits person whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge enactment facially because it also threatens others not before the court - those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid, and doctrine contemplates pragmatic judicial assumption that overbroad statute will have chilling effect on protected expression.
7. Constitutional Law
Courts may not go so far in narrowing construction of statute to render it constitutional so as to effectively rewrite legislative enactments.

 

"We find the ordinance unconstitutional because it unnecessarily infringes on constitutional rights; it is too vague because a violation of the law is determined based on law enforcement officers' discretion; it violates substantive due process by punishing innocent activities; and it impermissibly provides a greater penalty than that imposed by state statutes for similar criminal conduct".

 

[1,2] The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 4 of the Florida Constitution protect the rights of individual to express themselves in a variety of ways. The constitutions protect not only speech and the written word, but also conduct intended to communicate. Further, the First Amendment and article 1, section 5 of the Florida constitution protect the rights of individuals to associate with whom they please and to assemble with others for political or for social purposes.

 

[3,4] When lawmakers attempt to restrict or burden fundamental and basic rights such as these, the laws must not only be directed toward a legitimate public purpose, but they must be drawn as narrowly as possible. Put another way, statutes cannot be so broad that they prohibit constitutionally protected conduct as well as unprotected conduct.

 

[5,6] When legislation is drafted so that it may be applied to conduct that is protected by the First Amendment, it is said to be unconstitutionally overbroad. This overbreadth doctrine permits an individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an enactment facially "because it also threatens others not before the court - those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid".