Filing # 182183823 E-Filed 09/19/2023 07:18:01 PM

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2023MM002683CMB DIVISION: "B"

STATE OF FLORIDA

vs.

JON EUGENE MINADEO II,

PY
Defendant.
______________________________/

CO
STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS INFORMATION

D
The State of Florida by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and
IE
respectfully files this Response in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion and Incorporated Memo
IF
to Dismiss Information Unconstitutional Statute as applied.
RT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Jon Minadeo, the Defendant, is charged with one count of Attempt to Commit Dumping
CE

of Litter under Florida Statute 403.413(4)(6b).

2. On March 18, 2023, the Defendant, along with another person, were seen throwing clear
A

plastic bags with white paper and brown pellets onto the street and residents’ yards.
T

3. The arresting officer, Sergeant Preusz, in this case witnessed the Defendant throw these
O

plastic bags with white paper and brown pellets into the street and private yards.
N

4. A witness P.S., in a sworn statement, saw the baggie being thrown into his property and

advised the Defendant and other person he did not want the items thrown on his yard and

did not authorize for the items to be thrown on his yard.

FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 09/19/2023 07:18:01 PM
 5. Officers made contact with several witnesses who provided sworn statements that the bags

with white paper and brown pellets were unwanted and they did not authorize for the bags

to be thrown onto their property.

6. When Sergeant Preusz spoke with the Defendant regarding the bags being thrown, the

Defendant advised that they were going to continue to throw the bags.

7. Based off of his statement, the large black cooler was confiscated from the Defendant.

PY
8. The contents of the cooler was turned into evidence and weighed at West Palm Beach

CO
Police Department Headquarters. The cooler bag contained over 700 bags with white paper

and brown pellets, weighing at 47.5 pounds.

D
ARGUMENT
IE
Florida Statute § 403.413(4)(c), makes it unlawful for any person to dump litter in any
IF
manner or amount “in or on private property, unless prior consent of the owner has been given and
RT

unless the dumping of such litter by such person will not cause a public nuisance or otherwise be

in violation of any other state or local law, rule, or regulation.” “Dump” is defined in the statute as
CE

“to dump, throw, discard, place, deposit, or dispose of.” § 403.413(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2023). The

definition of “litter” contains a long list of items including “garbage; rubbish; trash; refuse; can;
A

bottle; box; container; paper…” § 403.413(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2023). If the amount of litter is under
T

15 pounds, the person will be issued a non-criminal citation. § 403.413(6)(a). However, if the
O

amount of litter exceeds 15 pounds and is less than 500 pounds, the person is guilty of a first degree
N

misdemeanor. §403.413(6)(b).

The Defendant argues that under the doctrine of noscitur a soclis, the words “‘paper’ and

‘container’ must be characterized along with ‘garbage,’ ‘trash,’ and ‘rubbish.’” In Cosio, the Court

started off their opinion with the quote “[o]ne man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” Cosio v.
State, 227 So.3d 209, 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). The Defendant cites to Cosio to support his

assertion that “‘paper’ and ‘container’ must be characterize along with ‘garbage,’ ‘trash,’ and

‘rubbish.’” In Cosio, the defendant was charged with Felony Littering as his yard was full of

newspapers, bottles, cans, tubs, barrels, dolls, toys, along with overgrown trees, shrubs, and

vegetation that exceeded one hundred cubic yards. Id. The concern in this case was whether the

State’s contention that overgrown plants could fall under the definition of litter. Using the doctrine

PY
Defense asks this court to use, the Second District Court of Appeal held that “a living tree is not

CO
trash, at least under the Florida Litter Law.” Id. The Court did uphold the categorization of

“garbage,” “trash,” and “rubbish” to every other item that the defendant had in his yard. Id. Noting

D
that the Court even referred to a picture of the defendant’s yard and stated it had “an enormous
IE
quantity of accumulated personal effects” which could easily be deemed as garbage, rubbish, or
IF
trash.
RT

The Defendant in this case sought to throw over 47 pounds of bags with white paper and

brown pellets onto other people’s yards and the street. Sergeant Preusz and witnesses saw the
CE

Defendant throw these bags onto people’s yards and in the street. The Defendant did not obtain

the consent of the homeowners prior to throwing these bags into their yards and even caused for
A

some to call emergency services. Defense argues that these plastic bags with paper and brown
T

pellets are not trash because the contents of the white paper are “political and religious in nature.”
O

The messages on the white paper within the bags are not relevant to the charge. Paper is clearly
N

defined as what can constitute litter in the statute. Additionally, the paper is not political or

religious in nature, the paper contains unsubstantiated claims attacking a specific religion and are

correctly classified as trash having no true political essence. It appears that the Defendant, by

throwing these flyers, intended to inflame or incite hatred against a specific religion.
 The Defendant may have been “careful enough to read the local ordinance,” but he did

commit Attempt to Commit Dumping of Litter when he tried to throw over forty-seven pounds of

plastic bags with white paper and brown pellets into people’s yards without their consent and on

public roadways.

Further, Florida’s Litter Law is narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s Interest in

preventing pollution and is constitutional. The First Amendment does not inherently shield against

PY
the act of throwing paper onto the streets and people’s yards, regardless of the content contained

CO
therein. In the context of private residences, the Supreme Court has acknowledged a heightened

need on the part of the State to ensure the protection of the unwilling listener within the sanctity

D
of their domicile, while carefully balancing the considerations of freedom of speech. There are
IE
different methods that exist for conveying ideas to private residential neighborhoods, notably door-
IF
to-door canvassing. In Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of New York, Inc. v. Vill. Of Stratton, the
RT

Supreme Court invalidated an ordinance restricting door-to-door canvassing on the ground that the

home owner could protect himself from such intrusion by an appropriate sign that said ‘he is
CE

unwilling to be disturbed.’ Watchtower, 536 U.S. 150 (2002). The Court did not mean that the

visitor could “insert a foot in the door and insist on a hearing.” Martin v. City of Struthers, 319
A

U.S. 141 (1943). The Court in Cohen, recognized “the privacy interest in avoiding unwanted
T

communication varies widely in different settings. It is far less important when “strolling through
O

Central Park” than when “in the confines of one's own home,” or when persons are “powerless to
N

avoid” it. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971).

In the present case, Defendant's method of distributing his controversial opinions imposed

itself upon a captive audience when he indiscriminately threw flyers and plastic bags onto private
residences. This goes contrary to the prevailing precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court which is

centered on safeguarding the unwilling listener within the confines of their own home.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned Assistant State Attorney requests this Honorable

Court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Information.

PY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CO
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion

has been furnished by E-SERVICE to LAURA M. WRIGHT ESQ. at

D
LAURA.WRIGHT@MUSCALAW.COM, this the 19th day of September, 2023.
IE
IF
Respectfully submitted,
RT

DAVID ARONBERG
STATE ATTORNEY
CE

/s/
_______________________
A

By: VICTORIA DIAS

Assistant State Attorney
Florida Bar No. 1038830
T

E-Service E-Mail: CCDIVB@SA15.ORG

O
N