The only realistic limits imposed on the police in our society are those defined by the courts. In a time of fear of crimes, both real and imagined, the social climate appears distinctly to favor a more aggressive approach to law enforcement and the public attitude is seemingly more accepting of fewer controls over the police.

The facts of the false arrest case of Melvin Walker, Leila Stephens, Terrance Tignor, and Otis Tignor against the City of Pompano Beach illustrate the danger innocent citizens can face in this modern society and, more significantly, the degree to which police discretion can subject any member of society to moments of helpless terror.

In Daley v. City of Sarasota, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal struck down a municipality’s attempt to impose an absolute ban on amplified noise emanating from unenclosed structures within certain zoning districts during specified hours of the day and night. The appellate court found that, despite the City’s laudable goal in attempting to regulate unreasonable noise, the First Amendment prohibits local governments from completely banning amplified noise. The Second District Court of Appeal’s holding extends to amplified commercial noise as well. Hence, any attempt to regulate amplified noise is “subject to strict guidelines and definite standards closely related to permissible governmental interests” and “must be sufficiently definitive as to secure against arbitrary enforcement.”

In Young v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court held that insurance provisions excepting self-insured vehicles from the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” violated Florida public policy. The Young decision was a significant change in insurance law, and it may raise more questions than it answers in the complicated field of uninsured motorist coverage.

This “Last Word” first reviews the basic principles and history of uninsured-motorist law in Florida, then discusses the specific facts and holding of the Young case, and finally suggests how the Young decision may impact some of the basic principles of insurance law well beyond the original parameters of the case.