STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

RELATED STORIES

• It’s unclear when Marco received OK to prosecute boat anchor restrictions
• Settling in for the long haul

More Fishing and Boating

• Barracuda chases catch into boat
• Anglers Outlook: Good fishing fronts; drilling home a point
• On the Hook: Secret (ha!) fishing spots

Share and Enjoy [?]

The only thing clear about the City of Marco Island’s legal battle with an island boater over the constitutionality of an anchoring ordinance is that the city is continuing to fight.

The Marco Island City Council emerged from a closed-door session Nov. 5 with the message that it wanted to appeal Collier County Court Judge Rob Crown’s ruling that declared a city ordinance restricting anchoring in the island’s waterways unconstitutional.

“It is the consensus belief of the Marco Island City Council that the city continue its efforts to defend its anchoring ordinance through appeal if necessary,” Council Chairman Mike Minozzi said once everyone had settled into their seats.

At the same time, councilors and City Attorney Alan Gabriel contended the city had not made a decision to appeal.

Those two statements appeared contradictory — and of questionable compliance with the state’s Sunshine Laws — but it’s one city officials now argue had a legal basis.

City lawyers maintain Crown’s Oct. 25 ruling was not appealable by law and the decision could not be final until Crown dismissed the formal criminal charges against the boater who intentionally violated the ordinance, Dave Dumas, 65.

This legalistic wrinkle is the latest in a situation that has attracted interest from state and national boater’s rights groups since Dumas anchored his boat “Kinship” for three days in January in Marco’s Smokehouse Bay.

The city’s current strategy became apparent after a Nov. 16 pretrial conference conducted before Crown to wrap up the charges against Dumas. The conference ended with Crown removing the case from the court trial docket.

That same day the attorney representing the city sent Crown a letter outlining the city’s argument about the need for an order of dismissal, citing a 1991 Fifth District Court of Appeals ruling. Crown dismissed the Dumas case Nov. 26.

But because the city had not received Crown’s order by the end of last week, Minozzi canceled a special-called closed session scheduled for Monday afternoon because “there was nothing new to report.” Gabriel said once the city received the dismissal he would request another closed meeting.

Presumably, the city would then make a formal, if perfunctory, move to appeal.

Some city officials are already preparing for the next round. Marco Island Police Chief Roger Reinke told the Sarasota Herald Tribune in a story published Sunday the city was appealing Crown’s ruling. The city’s attorneys seem to have received that order as well.

“Once the (dismissal) is entered, I will file a notice of appeal, unless directed otherwise,” wrote Dan Abbott, a partner in the firm representing the city, in a Nov. 27 e-mail to Gabriel that was forwarded to City Manager Bill Moss.

The city’s argument about the appeal’s timing doesn’t fly with Dumas’ pro-bono attorney, Donald Day.

“They’re wrong,” Day said.

Day maintained Crown’s Oct. 25 ruling was appealable. In the Nov. 16 hearing, the judge indicated the same.

“It was the court’s intention that it was a final appealable order,” Crown said during the proceeding.

The ramifications of this debate involve more than pure semantics. If the city is correct, the countdown for the city to file an appeal began after the order of dismissal. If Day is correct, the deadline has already expired.

“They missed their appeal date 15 days ago,” Day said last week.

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure appear to require prosecutors to file a notice of appeal within 15 days in such cases. Any appeal would go before Collier County Circuit Court, and it’s possible the case might not stop there given the potential for legal precedent in a state marked by a patchwork of local anchoring ordinances.

Marco Island’s handling of its case has not been without prior controversies.

The local State Attorney’s Office revealed in July that the city never signed a required interlocal agreement with the agency to prosecute city ordinances. That snafu led to Marco hiring its own attorney firm, Fort Lauderdale-based Weiss Serota, to prosecute the case. Weiss Serota charges more than four times the hourly rate of the state attorney.

Since July the city attorney has held three closed sessions with council to address the matter. The Daily News formally objected to the last session on Nov. 5, questioning whether the state statutory exemption to its open meeting laws applies to criminal, not just civil, litigation. The newspaper has now asked for transcripts from all three sessions, but the city attorney has rejected the request, citing the on going litigation exemption.

But Minozzi said he wouldn’t mind if the city’s decision process was more open.

“Quite frankly, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to me whether we make it public or not, but we’ve got to do what our attorney says,” Minozzi said.

City Finance Director Bill Harrison said the city has spent more than $32,000 on the case from July through mid-October. That figure includes a bill for the 8½-hour court hearing on the ordinance’s constitutionality. Harrison said the city hasn’t been billed for casework performed prior to July.