Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is ah indictment in two counts — the first for a conspiracy in restraint of trade, the second for a conspiracy to monopolize trade, contrary to the act of. July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, commonly known as the Sherman Act. Originally there was a third count for monopolizing, but it was held bad on demurrer and was struck out.'

The allegations of fact in the two counts are alike. Summed up in narrative form they are as follows: The American Naval Stores Company, a West Virginia corporation having its principal office in Savannah and branch offices in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., was, engaged in buying, selling, shipping and exporting spirits of turpentine in and from Southern States, to other States and abroad. Nash was the president; Shotter, chairman *375of the board-of directors; Myers, vice-president; Boardr man, treasurer; DeLoach, secretary, and Moller, manager of the Jacksonville, Florida, branch. The National Transportation and Terminal Company, a New Jersey corporation, had warehouses and terminals for handling spirits of turpentine and naval stores at Fernandina, and other places named, in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, etc., and was engaged in storing such turpentine and rosin and issuing warehouse receipts for the same. Myers was the president; DeLoach the.secretary and Moller manager of the Jacksonville branch. On May 1, 1907, it is alleged, these corporations and individuals conspired to restrain commerce in the articles named, among the States and with foreign nations — the restraint to be effected in the following ways among others: (1) by bidding down turpentine and rosin so that competitors could sell them only at ruinous prices;.(2) by causing naval stores receipts that naturally would go to one port to go to another; (3) by purchasing thereafter a' large part of 'its’ supplies at ports known as closed ports and, with intent to -depress the market, refraining from purchasing any'appreciable part at Savannah, the primary market in the United States for naval stores, where purchases would tend to strengthen prices, the defendants taking the receipts at the closed ports named on a basis of the market at Savannah; (4) by coercing factors and brokers into contracts with the defendants for the storage and purchase of their receipts and refusing to purchase from such factors and brokers unless such contracts were entered into.; (5) by circulating false statements as to naval stores production and stocks on hand; (6) by issuing fraudulent warehouse receipts; (7) by fraudulently grading, regrading and raising grades of rosins and falsely gauging spirits of turpentine; (8) by attempting to bribe employés of competitors so as to obtain information concerning their business and stocks; (9) by inducing consumers, by payments and *376threats of boycotts, to postpone dates of delivery of contract supplies and thus enabling defendants to postpone purchasing when to purchase would tend to strengthen the market; (10) by making tentative offers of large amounts of naval stores to depress the market, accepting contractonly for small amounts and purchasing when the market had been depressed by the offers; (11) by selling far below cost in order to compel competitors to meet' prices ruinous to everybody; (12) by fixing the price of turpentine below the cost of production — all the foregoing being for the purpose of driving competitors out of business and restraining foreign trade or, in the second count, of doing the same'and monopolizing the trade.

The two- counts before us were demurred to on the grounds that the statute was so' vagtie as to be inoperative on its criminal 'side; that neither of the counts alleged any overt act; that the contemplated acts .and things would not have constituted an offence if they had been done, and that the same acts, etc., were too vaguely- charged. The demurrer was overruled and this action of the court raises the important questions of the case. We will deal with them before passing to matters of detail.

The objection to the criminal operation of the statute is' thought to be warranted by The Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, and United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106. Those cases may be taken to have established that only such contracts an4 combinations are within the act as, by reason of intent or the inherent nature o'£ .the contemplated acts,’ prejudice the public interests by unduly restricting competition or unduly obstructing, the course of trade. 221 U. S. 179. And thereupon it is said that the crime thus defined by the statute contains in its definition an element of degree as to which estimates may differ, with the; result that a man might find himself in. prison because his" honest judgment did not anticipate that of a jury of less competent men. *377The kindred proposition that 'the criminality of an act cannot depend upon whether a jury may think it reasonable or unreasonable. There must be some definiteness and certainty/ is cited from the late Mr. Justice Brewer sitting in the Circuit Court. Tozer v. United States, 52 Fed. Rep. 917, 919.

But apart from the common law as to restraint of trade thus taken up by the statute the law is full of instances where a man’s fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the jury subsequently estimates it, some matter of-degree. If his judgment is wrong, not only may ,.he incur a fine or a short imprisonment, as here; he may incur the penalty of death. “An act causing death may be murder, manslaughter, or misadvénture according to the degree of danger attending it” by common experience in the circumstances known to the actor. “The very meaning of the fiction of implied malice in such cases at common law was, that a man might have to answer with his life for consequences which'he neither intended nor foresaw.” Commonwealth v. Pierce, 138 Massachusetts, 165, 178. Commonwealth v. Chance, 174 Massachusetts, 245, 252. “The criterion'in such cases is to examine whether common social duty .would/under the circumstances, have suggested a more circumspect conduct.” 1 East P. C. 262. If a man should kill another by driving an automobile furiously into a crowd, he might be convicted of murder however little he expected the result.' See Reg. v. Desmond, and other illustrations in Stephen, Dig. Crim. Law, art 223, 1st ed., p. 146. If he did no more than drive negligently through a street he might get off,with manslaughter or less. Reg. v. Swindall, 2 C. & K. 230; Rex v. Burton, 1 Strange, 481. And in the last case he might be held although he himself thought that he was acting as a prudent man should. See The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 596. But without further argument, .the case is very nearly disposed of by Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. *378 Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 109, where Mr. Justice Brewer’s decision and other similar ones were cited in vain. We are of opinion that there is no constitutional difficulty in the way of enforcing the criminal part of the act,

Coming next to the objection that no overt act is laid, the answer is that the Sherman Act punishes the' conspiracies at which it is aimed on the common law footing— that is to say, it does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability. The decisions as to the relations of a subsequent overt act to crimes under Rev. Stat., § 5440, in Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347, and Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392, have no bearing upon a statute that does not contain the requirement found in that section. As we can see no reason for reading into the Sherman Act more than we find there, we think it unnecessary to offer arguments against doing so.

As to the suggestion that the matters alleged to have been contemplated would not have constituted an offence if they had been done, it is enough to say that some of them conceivably might have been adequate to accomplish the result, and that the intent alleged would convert what on their face might be no more than ordinary acts of competition or the small dishonesties of trade into a conspiracy of wider scope, as has been explained more than once. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 396; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274,-299. Of course this fact calls for conscience and circumspection in prosecuting officers, lest by the unfounded charge of1 a wider purpose than the acts necessarily import they convert what at most would be small local offences into crimes under the statutes of the United States. But we cannot say, as was the case in United States v. Winslow, 227 U. S. 202, 218, that no intent could convert the proposed conduct into such a crime.

Finally, we cannot pronounce the counts before us bad for uncertainty. On demand of the defendants a bill of *379particulars- was furnished, and there is no reason to fear that injustice was done in that respect. — -There was no need to allege or prove that the conspirators themselves were all traders. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 301.— The first count, at least, was well enough.

After the demurrer was overruled the defendants pleaded not guilty and there was,a trial and a verdict finding that Nash, Shotter, Myers, Moller and Boardman were guilty and DeLoach not guilty, but saying nothing as to the corporations. Numerous exceptions were taken, but as writs of certiorari are not' granted to bring up the ordinary incidents of a criminal trial we shall say little more than is necessary to dispose of the case. It was argued with a good deal of force that the only evidence of the alleged conspiracy was certain1 acts done on .behalf of the corporations; that the only ground for charging the defendants who were found guilty was their relation to the companies and their being presumably cognizant of 'and more or less responsible for the corporate acts; that if those acts tended to prove a conspiracy they proved that thé corporations more clearly than any one else were parties to it, and therefore that a verdict that was silent as to them ought to be set aside. We need not consider the effect of Rev. Stat., § 1036, or whether on the evidence it was possible to. find the defendants guilty by reason of an intent not shown to be shared by the corporations, as the judgment must be reversed for another reason.

The reason is this. The court in its instructions told the jury to “consider the evidence of the means which it is insisted by the prosecution tends to show a conspiracy” and said: “You will consider carefully all the means which the indictment charges ” and “ It is sufficient if it be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that some of these means charged were a part of the common scheme, design or understanding or conspiracy by two or more of the defendants, and that these same means were of themselves *380sufficient to cause an essential obstruction and restraint of the free and untrammelled flow of trade and commerce between the States and foreign nations.” Thus while it may be admitted that not, all the means alleged need be proved, the charge invited the jury to consider all and permitted a verdict upon any one of them. The fifth, sixth and eighth statements of means to.be employed were withdrawn from the jury, but the jury’s attention seems not to have been called to the fact, that some of the charges were abandoned, in the connection in which it was important. Furthermore one of the means alleged was the false raising of grades and false gauging.. Taken with other evidence, if it was shown to be systematic it would have- had a tendency to show the scheme alleged. But taken by itself, as the jury might have taken it under the instructions, it showed only cheating and could not warrant a finding of the conspiracy 'with which the defendants were charged. It is unnecessary to.consider, whether there was any evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction upon some of- the other means alleged, for instance the-first, as the absence of such evidence only would add another reason for holding the instructions wrong upon a, vital point.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice Pitney dissents.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: GRANTING DEFENDANT RICHARD D. ROTH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

K. MICHAEL MOORE, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Richard D. Roth’s Motion *1383for Summary Judgment (dkt. #84) and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. # 85).

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Responses, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court enters the following Order.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from Defendants’ prohibition of Plaintiff Thomas Gray’s (“Gray”) distribution of Bibles on a public sidewalk within 500 feet of Key Largo School, a school safety zone pursuant to the Florida School Safety Zone Statute. § 810.0975, Fla. Stat. Gray claims the statute is unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth. The School Safety Zone Statute states, in relevant part:

(2)(a) Each principal or designee of each public or private school in this state shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency to prohibit any person from loitering in the school safety zone who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, or license to enter or remain in the school safety zone or does not otherwise have invitee status in the designated safety zone.

(b) During the period from 1 hour prior to the start of a school session until 1 hour after the conclusion of a school session, it is unlawful for any person to enter the premises or trespass within a school safety zone or to remain on such premises or within such school safety zone when that person does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone. Any person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree....

(c) Any person who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone who shall willfully fail to remove himself or herself from the school safety zone after the principal or designee, having a reasonable belief that he or she will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students entering or leaving school property, requests him or her to leave the school safety zone commits a misdemeanor of the second degree Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge or infringe upon the right of any person to peaceably assemble and protest.

(d)This section does not apply to residents or persons engaged in the operation of a licensed commercial business within the school safety zone.

§ 810.0975(2), Fla. Stat. Section 810.0975(1) defines a “school safety zone” as being “within 500 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary, middle, or high school or school board and used' for elementary, middle, or high school education.”

The following facts are set forth in the Complaint. Gray, a resident of Key Largo, Florida, and member of Gideons International (“Gideons”), feels a religious desire and obligation to share his religion with others. Compl, ¶¶ 25-26. One way Plaintiff shares his religion is by distributing Bibles in public. Id. at ¶ 27.

Key Largo has one road, U.S. 1, that spans its entire length. Id. at 137. Monroe County built and maintains a public bike path/sidewalk that abuts the east side of U.S. 1 for approximately twenty miles in Key Largo. Id. at ¶ 38. This public bike path/sidewalk is open and accessible to the public and is regularly used by community members for walking, running, biking, and other activities. Id. at 139. The public bike path/sidewalk runs in front of com*1384mercial businesses, government buildings, personal residences, and public and private schools. Id. at 140.

Many activities occur within 500 feet of Key Largo School between one hour prior to school beginning and one hour after school ends. Id. at ¶ 41. The public bike path/sidewalk abutting U.S. 1 and Key Largo School is located within 500 feet of the school to both the north and south and is routinely used by community members as they talk, walk, bike, and jog. Id. at ¶¶ 42-43. Many businesses are located within 500 feet of Key Largo School, including a pet motel, a gas station, “The Cracked Conch” restaurant, and a plumbing business. Id. at ¶¶ 45-46. Also within 500 feet of the school is a church, as well as a building where trucks are housed. Id. at ¶¶ 5854. Numerous residences are also located within 500 feet of the school. Id. at ¶ 47.

The Gideons’ procedure for handing out Bibles from the public bike path/sidewalk abutting school grounds is as follows: (1) approximately two weeks prior to the distribution, a member calls the appropriate police department to notify them of distribution; (2) ten to fifteen minutes prior to distribution, a few Gideon members give school administrators notice that they will be handing out Bibles after classes are dismissed; (3) Gideon members are instructed that they must stand on the public bike path/sidewalk during distribution and are not permitted on school grounds; and (4) Gideon members are instructed not to force Bibles on anyone. Id. at 158.

In December of 2006, several Gideons, including Gray, distributed Bibles at Coral Shores High School. Id. at 159. Coral Shores High School is located approximately five miles from Key Largo School and is adjacent to the same public bike path/sidewalk that abuts Key Largo School. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Approximately two weeks before the planned distribution at Coral Shores, Gray called Deputy Ralph Williams at the Monroe County Sheriffs Office and informed him of the plans to distribute Bibles. Id. at 162. Deputy Williams stated that the distribution was permissible and that he would be at the school on the day of distribution. Id. at 163. On the day of distribution, Deputy Williams, his Sergeant, and several other officers showed the Gideons where to stand on the public bike path/sidewalk. Id. at 165. The Gideons stood on the public bike path/sidewalk next to the entrances and exits to Coral Shores and distributed Bibles from these positions. Id. at ¶ 66. There were no problems during the Coral Shores distribution. Id. at ¶ 67.

The following month, on January 19, 2007, Gray and other Gideons distributed Bibles at Key Largo School. Id. at 169. Approximately two weeks prior to the distribution at Key Largo School, Gray contacted Deputy Williams to inform him of the planned distribution at Key Largo School. Id. at 170. Gray contacted Deputy Williams three times to give him notice. Id. at 1170-71. Deputy Williams told Gray that the planned distribution from the public bike path/sidewalk at Key Largo School was permissible. Id. at H70-71. Deputy Williams also informed Gray that the school resource officer at Key Largo School would be out of town during the distribution, but that the school would have no problem with the distribution. Id. at 172.

Gray arrived at Key Largo School at approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 19, 2007. Id. at 173. Gray and another Gideon member then went to the school administration building to inform the Principal of the planned Bible distribution, but the Principal was not available. Id. at 176-78. Gray also spoke with Florida State Patrol Officer, Gretchen Glenn, who was in the school office at this time, and Officer Glenn *1385gave no indication that the Bible distribution was problematic. Id. at ¶¶ 81-82.

Gray then returned to the other Gideons on the public bike path/sidewalk and positioned himself on the public bike path/sidewalk by the school crosswalk. Id. at H83-85. Shortly after Gray took his position by the crosswalk, the Principal came out of the school and stared at Gray for a few minutes. Id. at ¶ 89. She did not approach or speak to Gray and she did not witness Plaintiff handing out any Bibles. Id. At about 3:20 p.m., Deputy Williams stopped at Gray’s position to see how distribution was going. Id. at 188. For the duration of the time he distributed Bibles at the school, Gray stood on the public bike path/sidewalk and did not cross onto school grounds. Id. at 190.

At approximately 3:30 p.m., Gray received a call on his cell phone from a fellow Gideon member who was distributing Bibles at the school that day. Id. at ¶ 91. The caller informed Gray that he and another Gideon member were being arrested. Id. at 192. Gray stopped distributing Bibles, put them back in his truck, and walked up to the school’s north exit. Id. at 194. There were approximately five to six Sheriffs Officers present. Id. at 195. Gray identified himself as the Gideon member in charge and asked the officers who was in charge. They all indicated that Officer John Perez was the arresting Officer. Id. at 196. Gray approached Officer Perez and asked what the charges were. Officer Perez was highly agitated and said that Gray would know in forty-eight hours when he received the report. Id. at 198.

Gray then called Deputy Williams and asked for his assistance. Id. at ¶ 101. Deputy Williams indicated that he would email Officer Perez. Id. at ¶ 102. Gray told Officer Perez that he had an email in his car from another officer stating that the Gideons have a right to distribute Bibles from the public bike path/sidewalk, but Officer Perez indicated that he did not care. Id. at ¶¶ 103-106. Gray immediately ceased his Bible distribution. Id. at ¶ 123. Gray has not returned to distribute Bibles on public sidewalks within 500 feet of school property due to his fear of arrest and prosecution. Id. at 1124. The Gideons who Officer Perez arrested were charged with violating the School Safety Zone Statute but were never convicted. Amended Information, Case No.’s 2007-MM149-A-P and 2007-MM0149-B-P, (Sixteenth Judicial Circuit for Monroe County, Fla., Upper Keys Div. March 13, 2007).

On April 20, 2007, Gray filed the Verified Complaint in this case, stating five (5) causes of action: (1) violation of the right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment; (2) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) violation of the right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment as incorporated and applied through the Fourteenth Amendment; and (5) violation of Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“FRFRA”).1

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The applicable standard for reviewing a summary judgment motion is unambigu*1386ously stated in Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment may be entered only where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Twiss v. Kury, 25 F.3d 1551, 1554 (11th Cir.1994). The moving party has the burden of meeting this exacting standard. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142(1970). An issue of fact is “material” if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997). An issue is “genuine” if the record, taken as a whole, could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Id.

In applying this standard, the district court must view the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. However, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Vagueness

Gray facially challenges § 810.0975 (the “School Safety Zone Statute”) on grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999); see Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573-74, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972). “ ‘In evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must ... consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered.’ ” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 355, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 1186). Criminal penalties are scrutinized more closely for vagueness than civil penalties because the consequences of imprecise criminal statutes are more severe. Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499-500, 102 S.Ct. 1186. “[A] scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.” Id.

1. Notice

“It is established that a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standard-less that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits.” Morales, 527 *1387U.S. at 56, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (citing Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 882 U.S. 399, 402-03, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966)). “[Because we‘assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186. “[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application violates the first essential of due process of law.” Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). “No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939).

a. Subsection (2)(b)

Subsection (2)(b) of the School Safety Zone Statute prohibits any person from entering the school safety zone during certain hours of the day unless they have “legitimate business” within the school safety zone. “Legitimate business” is not defined in the statute and there is no scienter requirement. The statute exempts residents, persons engaged in the operation of a licensed commercial business, or persons having another authorization, license or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone. § 810.0975(2)(b), (3), Fla. Stat. Violation of this portion of the statute contains no prerequisite that a person refuse to leave the area once notified that they have no “legitimate business” in the school safety zone. An individual is in violation of subsection (2)(b) as soon as they enter the school safety zone during an applicable time of day without “legitimate business” to justify their presence. Because the school safety zone extends 500 feet outward from the perimeter of school property, the school safety zone around Key Largo School encompasses residential neighborhoods, businesses and sidewalks on both sides of U.S. 1. Therefore, people in any of these areas who are not exempt may be convicted of a second degree misdemeanor unless they are in the school safety zone on “legitimate business.”

By its terms, the School Safety Zone Statute passes constitutional muster only if “legitimate business” reasonably informs individuals of ordinary intelligence of the acts that will render them in violation of the statute. Florida’s appellate courts have never had occasion to define, clarify or narrow the meaning of “legitimate business” within the context of § 810.0975. However, other Florida statutes and municipal ordinances have used the term “legitimate business” to define permissible conduct. Former Jacksonville municipal curfew ordinance § 614.104 prohibited minors under 16 from loitering or wandering on public streets between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and sunrise unless accompanied by a parent or on “legitimate business.” The First District Court of Appeal of Florida found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague because the term “legitimate business” “did not provide sufficient guidance to parties as to what conduct was prohibited.” K.L.J. v. State of Florida, 581 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Additionally, Florida’s statute prohibiting trespass upon school grounds prohibits any person not having “legitimate business on the campus” from entering or remaining on the campus. § 810.097(1), Fla. Stat. The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida has held that the term “legitimate business on the campus” means “any purpose for being [on campus] which is connected with the operation of the school.” A.C. v. The State of Florida, 538 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. *13883rd DCA 1989).2 Accordingly, the court found that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it sufficiently described the type of activity that would expose a person to criminal liability. Id.; see also J.H. v. State of Florida, 625 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Here, § 810.0975(2)(b) has no language, such as “on campus,” that limits the scope of “legitimate business.” Therefore, no inference limiting the scope of “legitimate business” to any purpose connected to the purpose of the school is warranted. Even if such an inference could be extrapolated from the text of the statute, to do so would increase the sweep of the statute by criminalizing the presence of any nonexempt person within 500 feet of school property who enters or remains in the area with no reason connected to the purpose of the school. Given the wide range of non-exempt persons and the various types of areas within the school safety zone, such as sidewalks, residential houses and streets, businesses, parking lots, etc., construing “legitimate purpose” to mean any purpose which is connected with the operation of the school would result in an application so broad that it would likely infringe on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Moreover, “[t]he Constitution does not permit a legislature to ‘set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.’ ” Morales, 527 U.S. at 60, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (quoting United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221, 23 L.Ed. 563 (1875)). Therefore, given that Florida’s appellate courts have not limited the scope of “legitimate business” for purposes of the School Safety Zone Statute, this Court must rely solely on the text of the statute to determine if it is unconstitutionally vague. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 355,103 S.Ct. 1855.

This Court finds that subsection (2)(b) of the School Safety Zone Statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide citizens of ordinary intelligence with reasonable notice of the types of acts that the statute criminalizes. The term “legitimate business” requires citizens to guess at the conduct that falls within the statute’s ambit and to speculate concerning whether their reason for being in the school safety zone is legitimate enough. The vagueness that dooms this statute is not the product of uncertainty about the normal meaning of “legitimate business,” but rather about what “legitimate business” is covered by the statute and what is not. Morales, 521 U.S. at 60, 119 S.Ct. 1849; see Allen v. City of Bordentown, 216 N.J.Super. 557, 565, 524 A.2d 478 (1987) (finding curfew statute unconstitutionally vague because the words “legitimate business” are unduly subjective and fail to provide fair notice of proscribed conduct). “Thus, the [statute] is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result, ‘men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.’ ” Coates, 402 U.S. at 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686 (quoting Connolly, 269 U.S. at 391, 46 S.Ct. 126). Such “[u]ncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone’ ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109, 92 S.Ct. 2294. (quoting Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372, 84 S.Ct. 1316, 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964)).

With respect to the imprecise scope of conduct proscribed by the School Safety *1389Zone Statute, the statute is similar to the ordinance held unconstitutionally vague in Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971). In Coates, the Court assessed the constitutionality of a Cincinnati ordinance making it a criminal offense for “three or more persons to assemble ... on any of the sidewalks ... and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by.” Id. The Court held that the ordinance’s prohibition against annoying behavior was unconstitutionally vague because it provided an unascertainable standard that failed to describe the proscribed conduct with reasonable specificity, especially since “conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others.” Id. at 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686. As a result, enforcement of the statute would necessarily depend on whether or not a policeman was annoyed. Id.

Here, citizens are no more likely to successfully ascertain what constitutes “legitimate business” because the term is purely subjective. The term “legitimate business” describes conduct at least as imprecisely as does the word “annoying,” because what constitutes an emergency to one person, and thus “legitimate business,” may be a mere trifle to another. Similarly, what constitutes a moral imperative to one person, and thus “legitimate business,” may be an inconvenience or annoyance to another. Although “legitimate business” is not an intrinsically indiscernible term, and indeed may even have a generally accepted usage, it does not describe a range of conduct with the specificity required of a penal statute to enable a person of ordinary intelligence to avoid having to speculate at its meaning. Therefore, the School Zone Safety Statute is unconstitutionally vague because it fails “to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits.” Morales, 527 U.S. at 56, 119 S.Ct. 1849.

b. Subsection (2)(e)

Subsection (2)(c) gives rise to a criminal penalty if a person fails to vacate the school safety zone after being instructed to do so by a principal or designee who reasonably believes a crime is about to be committed or that the person is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students. An argument could therefore be made that subsection (2)(c) provides sufficient notice of proscribed conduct because a person will always be adverted to the prohibited conduct by the principal or designee and •will also have an opportunity to leave the school safety zone before the conduct becomes a crime.

However, the vagueness of a statute that lacks clarity and precision sufficient to provide a citizen of ordinary intelligence with notice of the conduct it prohibits cannot be remedied by a provision that permits a potential offender to cease the activity once they are advised that their conduct is proscribed by the statute. See Morales, 527 U.S. at 58, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (rejecting city’s assertion that gang congregation ordinance provided fair notice of proscribed conduct where no violation of the ordinance occurred until a person failed to respond to an order of dispersal). This is so for two reasons. First, because an order to leave the school safety zone can only be given once the prohibited conduct has already occurred, the statute fails to provide the advance notice that will protect a citizen from being ordered to leave the school safety zone in the first instance. Id. at 59, 119 S.Ct. 1849. “Such an order cannot retroactively give adequate warning of the boundary between the permissible and the impermissible applications of the law.” Id.; see Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 292, 83 S.Ct. 1240, 10 L.Ed.2d 349 (1963) (stating that “a generally worded statute that is construed to pun*1390ish conduct that cannot be constitutionally punished is unconstitutionally vague to the extent that it fails to give adequate warning of the boundary between the constitutionally permissible and constitutionally impermissible applications of the statute”). Second, the School Safety Zone Statute fails to define how long a person must leave the covered area or whether they can return by simply subjectively deciding that they have a reason that better approximates “legitimate business.” Although this lack of clarity alone is not fatal, it further demonstrates the arbitrary and inscrutable nature of a statute that relies on “legitimate business” as a measuring rod for defining prohibited conduct. See Morales, 527 U.S. at 59-60, 119 S.Ct. 1849.

Unlike subsection (2)(b), however, in addition to being present within a school safety zone without “legitimate business,” no offense results under subsection (2)(c) unless a person refuses an order by a principal or designee to leave the school safety zone. No order to vacate may issue unless the principal or designee has “a reasonable belief that [the person] will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation.” § 810.0975(2)(e), Fla. Stat. The effect of this additional limitation is that a person is proscribed from being in a school safety zone without “legitimate business,” but may not be asked to leave, and therefore runs no risk of violating subsection (2)(c), unless the principal or designee reasonably believes the person will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation. In other words, although the statute proscribes entry into a school safety zone without “legitimate business,” the mere act of doing so does not constitute criminal conduct unless accompanied by other evidence giving rise to a reasonable belief that a person will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation.

Plaintiff has not argued that this additional limitation is also unconstitutionally vague, but has instead focused primarily on the vagueness created by the statute’s dependence on the term “legitimate business.” This Court finds that subsection (2)(c)’s requirement that a principal or des-ignee have “a reasonable belief that [the person] will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation” prior to issuing an order to leave the school safety zone resolves the unconstitutional vagueness fatal to subsection (2)(b). Despite the statute’s reliance on “legitimate business,” the additional limitations are not unconstitutionally vague because the terms “reasonable belief,” “harassment” and “intimidation” provide sufficient notice to enable ordinary people to understand what kind of conduct subsection 2(e) prohibits.

Of these terms, “harassment” is perhaps the least specific and most subjective. However, unlike the terms “legitimate business” and “annoy,” which are not defined in any of Florida’s penal statutes, the term “harassment” is defined as “engaging] in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 784.048(Z )(a), Fla. Stat. Although this statutory definition of harassment makes use of the term “legitimate purpose,” its reliance on acts directed towards a specific person resulting in substantial emotional distress is sufficiently specific to put an ordinary person on notice of proscribed conduct. See U.S v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 943-44 (11th Cir.2006) (finding that federal statute criminalizing harassing phone calls was not unconstitutionally vague); U.S. v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365, 381 (6th Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds 543 U.S. 1182, 125 S.Ct. 1420, 161 L.Ed.2d 181 (2005) (same).

*1391This Court is cognizant that subsection (2)(c)’s applicability may be unclear in some situations. However, the test for unconstitutional vagueness is not whether the statute is unclear in some of its applications. A statute is only unconstitutional if it is “impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 497, 102 S.Ct. 1186. Furthermore, any questionable application of the statute is always subject to an as-applied challenge. Therefore, subsection (2)(c) is not unconstitutionally vague.

c. Subsection (2)(a)

Subsection (2)(a) does not create any criminal penalty. Instead, it works in conjunction with subsections (b) and (c) by requiring a principal or designee to notify law enforcement to prohibit a non-exempt person from loitering in a school safety zone without “legitimate business.” As such, subsection 2(a) sets the stage for enforcement of subsections (b) and (c). As merely a mandate to principals or their designee, it has little relevance without the means of enforcement provided in subsection (2)(b) or in conjunction with the additional limiting factors in subsection (2)(c). Nevertheless, because the mandate depends upon a determination of what conduct constitutes “legitimate business,” this Court also finds the provision unconstitutionally vague for the reasons stated with respect to subsection (2)(b).

2. Arbitrary and Discriminatory Enforcement

A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Morales, 527 U.S. at 56, 119 S.Ct. 1849; Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855. A legislature enacting a penal statute must “establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974)). “Where the legislature fails to provide such minimal guidelines, a criminal statute may permit ‘a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections.’ ” Id. (quoting Goguen, 415 U.S. at 575, 94 S.Ct. 1242).

Subsection (2)(b) of the School Safety Zone Statute contains no standard for law enforcement to ascertain when a person within a school safety zone is there on “legitimate business.” See Id. “As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.” Id. Subsection (2)(b) therefore grants law enforcement with unbridled discretion and “entrusts lawmaking ‘to moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat.’ ” Goguen, 415 U.S. at 575, 94 S.Ct. 1242 (quoting Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 120, 89 S.Ct. 946, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969)). As a result, subsection (2)(b) of the School Safety Zone Statute “furnishes a convenient tool for ‘harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure.’ ” Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 170, 92 S.Ct. 839 (quoting Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940)). Although the necessity of providing children with safe and secure environs within and around educational areas is an interest of great importance, “it cannot justify legislation that would otherwise fail to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357,103 S.Ct. 1855. “Although due process does not require impossible standards of clarity, this is not a case where further precision in the statutory language is either impossible or impractical.” Id. Therefore, subsection (2)(b) of *1392the School Safety Zone Statute is unconstitutionally vague because it authorizes and encourages arbitrary enforcement. For the reasons stated above in Section 111(A)(1)(b) of this Order, subsection (2)(c) does not create the same potential for arbitrary enforcement. Subsection (2)(a) also lacks the potential for arbitrary enforcement because it contains no enforcement mechanism independent of subsections (2)(b) and (c).

B. Overbreadth

“[T]he overbreadth doctrine permits the facial invalidation of laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when ‘judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ ” Morales, 527 U.S. at 52, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). “Equally important, over-breadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct.” Id. at 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908. Instead, the preferred course of action is to reverse a conviction based on an unconstitutional application of a statute. Id. at 613-14, 93 S.Ct. 2908. “Additionally, overbreadth scrutiny has generally been somewhat less rigid in the context of statutes regulating conduct in the shadow of the First Amendment, but doing so in a neutral, noncensorial manner.” Id. at 614, 93 S.Ct. 2908. “Application of the overbreadth doctrine in this manner is, manifestly, strong medicine. It has been employed ... sparingly and only as a last resort.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973).

Subsections (2)(a) and (b) have already been held unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, this Court need make no findings with respect to the potential overbreadth of these subsections. Here, subsection (2)(c) the School Safety Zone Statute prohibits a person from entering or remaining in a school safety zone without “legitimate business” where a principal or designee has reason to believe that a person will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students. As such, the statute regulates conduct, not speech. Moreover, the statute does not proscribe conduct intended to convey a message. Subsection (2)(e) targets conduct evincing an intent to commit a crime or constituting harassment or intimidation of students. While there may be some plausible ways in which the statute may be applied unconstitutionally, those situations are not significant in comparison to the scope of the statute’s permissible application. This Court finds that subsection (2)(c) is not overbroad because its impermissible applications are not substantial in relation to its plainly legitimate scope. See Morales, 527 U.S. at 52, 119 S.Ct. 1849; Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908.

C. Municipal Liability

1. Arrests by Officer Perez

Defendant Roth asserts that Plaintiffs claims against him in his official capacity should be dismissed because he cannot be held liable in his official capacity for the acts of Officer Perez. “A local government is hable under § 1983 for its policies that cause constitutional torts.” McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama, 520 U.S. 781, 785, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997) (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Socal Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)). “Respondeat superior or vicarious liability will not attach under § 1983.” City of Canton, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). “These policies may be set by the *1393government’s lawmakers, ‘or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.’ ” McMillian, 520 U.S. at 784, 117 S.Ct. 1734 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018). “A court’s task is to ‘identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policymaking authority for the local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue.’ ” Id. (quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737, 109 S.Ct. 2702,105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989)).[M]unicipal liability “may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policy makers under appropriate circumstances.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986).

Based on the foregoing, the relevant questions are whether a Deputy or Officer of the Monroe County Sheriff is a final policymaking authority in matters of law enforcement in Monroe County or if there was a policy of unconstitutional enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute in Monroe County. As an initial matter, in the absence of an applicable'city or county ordinance to the contrary, a Florida county Sheriff acts as an arm of the county and is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Abusaid v. Hillsborough County Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298, 1313-14 (11th Cir.2005) (applying Huf-ford’s four-factor test to determine that a County Sheriff enforcing a county statute acts as an arm of the county and is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity) 3; Cooper v. Dillon, 403 F.3d 1208, 1223 (11th Cir.2005); Hufford v. Rodgers, 912 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir.1990); see generally McMillian, 520 U.S. at 784-97, 117 S.Ct. 1734. A Deputy or Officer in one of Florida’s county Sheriff departments does not constitute a final policymaking authority for the county because he does not stand in the shoes of the Sheriff and is under the chain of command of the Sheriff. Brown v. Neumann, 188 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that even in light of § 30.07, Florida Statutes, a Deputy Sheriff is not a final policymaker of a Florida county); see Adcock v. Baca, 157 Fed.Appx. 118, 120 (11th Cir.2005); Wright v. Sheppard, 919 F.2d 665, 674 (11th Cir.1990). Therefore, a discretionary act by a Deputy or Officer, of which the County Sheriff does not know about, ratify or consent to, cannot constitute a final policy of the county. Id. Here, there is no evidence that Sheriff Roth directed Officer Perez to arrest the individuals handing out Bibles, or that Sheriff Roth knew about or consented to the arrests beforehand. In the absence of any such knowledge by Sheriff Roth, the arrests were a purely discretionary act of Officer Perez, and any chilling of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights must also be attributed to Officer Perez. As such, Officer Perez’s decision to enforce the School Safety Zone Statute against the individuals handing out .tables does not constitute a policy of Monroe County.

However, Officer Perez’s arrest of the Gideons could become an act attributable to the County if the arrests were ratified by Sheriff Roth after the fact. If an authorized policymaker ratifies a subordinate’s decision and the reasons for making the decision, the decision is chargeable to the municipality. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); Garvie v. City of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., 366 F.3d 1186, 1189 (11th Cir.2004) (stating that a *1394municipality may become responsible for the conduct of a subordinate that a final policymaker ratifies by reviewing and manifesting approval). Here, there is no evidence that Sheriff Roth, the final policy-making authority in matters of law enforcement for Monroe County, ratified Officer Perez’s arrests of the Gideons based on the fact that they were distributing Bibles within the school safety zone. When Sheriff Roth was asked if he thought that handing out Bibles in the school safety zone constitutes “legitimate business,” he responded that as long as traffic was not disrupted and there were no other safety issues, handing out Bibles would be “legitimate business.” Sheriff Roth Dep., at 27-28 (April 1, 2008). Hence, Monroe County cannot be said to have a policy of arresting citizens handing out Bibles within a school safety zone.

This Court notes that Sheriff Roth’s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (dkt. # 24) states that “[a] person such as Plaintiff is free to distribute bibles from a position that is 501 feet away from the school.” Sheriff Roth’s Opp. To Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., at 6. However, weighing this statement contained in a legal argument made at an early stage in the proceedings against Sheriff Roth’s personal response to a direct question concerning his interpretation of the applicability of the School Safety Zone Statute, this Court finds the latter statement most accurately reflects Sheriff Roth’s view of the County’s policy concerning enforcement of the statute in the circumstances at issue and that neither statement constitutes ratification of Officer Perez’s actions. Therefore, Monroe County is not liable for the arrests conducted by Officer Perez.

2. Failure to Train

Plaintiff also asserts that Sheriff Roth’s failure to conduct adequate training concerning enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute resulted in unconstitutional conduct attributable to Sheriff Roth. “[T]he inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for § 1988 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come in contact.” City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 387, 109 S.Ct. 1197. “[I]n light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training [may be] so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent.” Id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. 1197. “For liability to attach ... the identified deficiency in a city’s training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury.” Id. at 391, 109 S.Ct. 1197; see Bd. of the County Commrs. of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (stating that “[t]o prevent municipal liability from collapsing into respondeat superi- or, a court must carefully test the link between the policymaker’s inadequate decision and the particular injury alleged”).

Here, Plaintiff asserts that the absence of training with respect to enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute constitutes deliberate indifference. This is true only if the need for training concerning enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute was so obvious, and its absence so likely to result in a constitutional violation, that Sheriff Roth was deliberately indifferent to the rights of the citizens of Monroe County by failing to provide such training. However, there is no evidence suggesting that Sheriff Roth was on notice of prior instances of unconstitutional enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute or that he had reason to believe that it would be enforced unconstitutionally. The statute is but one of a host of penal statutes that the Monroe County Sheriff is charged with *1395enforcing, and Sheriff Roth is not responsible for having divined in advance the potential unconstitutional applications of each. To find otherwise would give rise to a blanket imposition of liability for a Sheriffs failure to train his or her Deputies and Officers concerning every potential unconstitutional application of each of Florida’s many penal statutes. Such a finding would also require a Sheriff to discern in advance which of the penal statutes might be subject to a facial challenge on constitutional grounds. Sheriffs are not lawyers and even if they were, they ought not be charged with ascertaining constitutional defects in penal statutes that escaped the legislators who enacted them.

While it is true that notice of prior unconstitutional enforcement is not necessarily required, this is not a case where the likelihood of unconstitutional enforcement was so obvious that Sheriff Roth was deliberately indifferent for failing to take action. In City of Canton, the Court stated that city policymakers “know to a moral certainty that their police officers will be required to arrest fleeing felons,” giving rise to “the need to train officers in the constitutional use of deadly force.” 109 S.Ct. at 1205 n. 10. However, this Court does not find that Sheriff Roth knew or should have known that his Deputies or Officers would be required to determine whether handing out bibles within a school safety zone would constitute “legitimate business” within the meaning of the School Safety Zone Statute.

Enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute with respect to bible distribution, or even with respect to activities that may enjoy some measure of constitutional protection, is not such a core activity of police officers that a Sheriff can be said to know to a moral certainty of the constitutional problems that may precipitate from the School Safety Zone Statute’s enforcement. Unlike giving chase to fleeing felons, which is an event that may flow from the breach of virtually any penal statute and is a constantly recurring event in law enforcement, the constitutional dimension of enforcing the School Safety Zone statute, which was enacted in 2002 and has scarcely been addressed by Florida’s appellate courts, is not a matter of such magnitude that Sheriff Roth’s failure to provide enforcement training was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Monroe County’s citizens. Therefore, Sheriff Roth is not liable for failure to provide training concerning enforcement of the School Safety Zone Statute. Accordingly, the damages claim against Sheriff Roth in his official capacity must be dismissed.

The findings above dispose of all disposi-tive substantive issues. Therefore, this Court need make no additional findings.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. # 85) is GRANTED IN PART. Subsections 2(a) and 2(b) of § 810.0975, Florida Statutes, are declared unconstitutionally vague. The State of Florida and its officers are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing these subsections. It is further,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Richard D. Roth’s Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. # 84) is GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to CLOSE this case. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

*1290HARDING, Justice.

We have for review Johnson v. State, 578 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE INGESTION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY A MOTHER WHO KNOWS THE SUBSTANCE WILL PASS TO HER CHILD AFTER BIRTH IS A VIOLATION OF FLORIDA LAW?

Our jurisdiction is based on article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, and we answer the certified question in the negative.

The issue before the court is whether section 893.13(l)(c)(l), Florida Statutes (1989), permits the criminal prosecution of a mother, who ingested a controlled substance prior to giving birth, for delivery of a controlled substance to the infant during the thirty to ninety seconds following the infant’s birth, but before the umbilical cord is severed.

Johnson presents four arguments attacking the applicability of section 893.-13(l)(c)(l) to her conviction: 1) the district court’s interpretation of the statute violates the legislature’s intent; 2) the plain language of the statute prevents her conviction; 3) the conviction violates her constitutional rights of due process and privacy; and 4) the State presented insufficient evidence to show that she intentionally delivered cocaine to a minor. The Court received amicus briefs on Johnson’s behalf from the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Law and Medicine, a group of Florida legislators, the Florida Association of Women Lawyers, and the National Association for Perinatal Addiction Resources and Education. The State contends that the district court correctly found that the statute’s plain language prohibits the delivery of the controlled substance to a minor, and that the conviction does not violate Johnson’s constitutional rights.

We adopt Judge Sharp’s analysis concerning the insufficiency of the evidence to support Johnson’s conviction and her analysis concerning the legislature's intent in section 893.13(l)(c)(l). However, we note that Judge Sharp’s analysis did not clearly state the rules of statutory construction in the criminal context. Although Judge Sharp correctly applied the rule of strict construction, she failed to apply the other paramount rule of criminal statutory construction, the rule of lenity. § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1989).

The rules of statutory construction require courts to strictly construe criminal statutes, and that “when the language is susceptible to differing constructions, [the statute] shall be construed most favorably to the accused.” § 775.021(1). In strictly construing criminal statutes, we have held that only those terms which are “ ‘clearly and intelligently described in [a penal statute’s] very words, as well as manifestly intended by the Legislature’ ” are to be considered as included in the statute. State v. Wershow, 343 So.2d 605, 608 (Fla.1977), quoting Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289 (1927). We find that the legislative history does not show a manifest intent to use the word “delivery” in the context of criminally prosecuting mothers for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor by way of the umbilical cord. This lack of legislative intent coupled with uncertainty that the term “delivery” applies to the facts of the instant case, compels this Court to construe the statute in favor of Johnson. The text of Judge Sharp’s dissent is as follows:

Johnson appeals from two convictions for delivering a controlled substance to her two minor children in violation of section 893.13(l)(c)l., Florida Statutes (1989).1 The *1291state’s theory of the case was that Johnson “delivered” cocaine or a derivative of the drug to her two children via blood flowing through the children’s umbilical cords in the sixty-to-ninety second period after they were expelled from her birth canal but before their cords were severed. The application of this statute to this concept of “delivery” presents a case of first impression in this state. Because I conclude that section 893.13(l)(c)l. was not intended to apply to these facts, I would vacate the convictions and remand for the entry of a judgment of acquittal.

The record in this case establishes the following facts. On October 3, 1987, Johnson delivered a son. The birth was normal with no complications. There was no evidence of fetal distress either within the womb or during the delivery. About one and one-half minutes elapsed from the time the son’s head emerged from his mother’s birth canal to the time he was placed on her stomach and the cord was clamped.

The obstetrician who delivered Johnson’s son testified he presumed that the umbilical cord was functioning normally and that it was delivering blood to the baby after he emerged from the birth canal and before the cord was clamped. Johnson admitted to the baby’s pediatrician that she used cocaine the night before she delivered. A basic toxicology test performed on Johnson and her son was positive for benzoylecgo-nine, a metabolite or “breakdown” product of cocaine.

In December 1988, Johnson, while pregnant with a daughter, suffered a crack overdose. Johnson told paramedics that she had taken $200 of crack cocaine earlier that evening and that she was concerned about the effects of the drug on her unborn child. Johnson was then taken to the hospital for observation.

Johnson was hospitalized again on January 23, 1989, when she was in labor. Johnson told Dr. Tompkins, an obstetrician, that she had used rock cocaine that morning while she was in labor. With the exception of finding meconium stain fluid in the amniotic sack,2 there were no other complications with the birth of Johnson’s baby daughter. Approximately sixty-to-ninety seconds elapsed from the time the child’s head emerged from her mother’s birth canal until her umbilical cord was clamped.

The following day, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services investigated an abuse report of a cocaine baby concerning Johnson’s daughter. Johnson told the investigator that she had smoked pot and crack cocaine three to four times every-other-day throughout the duration of her pregnancy with her daughter. Johnson’s mother acknowledged that Johnson had been using cocaine for at least three years during the time her daughter and son were born.

At Johnson’s trial, Dr. Tompkins testified that a mother’s blood passes nutrients, oxygen and chemicals to an unborn child by a diffusion exchange at the capillary level from the womb to the placenta. The umbilical cord then circulates the baby’s blood (including the exchange from its mother) between the placenta and the child. Metabolized cocaine derivatives in the mother’s blood thus diffuse from the womb to the placenta, and then reach the baby through its umbilical cord. Although the blood flow is somewhat restricted during the birthing process, a measurable amount of blood is transferred from the placenta to the baby through the umbilical cord during delivery and after birth.

Dr. Shashi Gore, a pathologist and toxicologist, testified that cocaine has a half life of about one hour. This means that half of the amount of the drug remains in a person’s blood stream for about one hour. The remainder gradually decreases over a period of forty-eight to seventy-two hours. The liver metabolizes the cocaine into ben-zoylecgonine which travels through the kidneys and into the urine until it is voided.

*1292When Dr. Gore was asked whether a woman who had smoked cocaine at 10:00 p.m. and again between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. the following morning and delivered a child at 1:00 p.m. that afternoon would still have cocaine or benzoylecgonine present in her blood stream at the time of delivery, the response was yes. When asked whether a woman who had smoked cocaine sometime the night before delivering a child at 8:00 in the morning would still have cocaine or benzoylecgonine in her system at the time of the child’s birth, the response again was yes.

Dr. Stephen Kandall, a neonatologist, testified for the defense that it was impossible to tell whether the cocaine derivatives which appeared in these children’s urine shortly after birth were the result of the exchange from the mother to her children before or after they were born because most of it took place from womb to the placenta before the birth process was complete.

He also testified that blood flow to the infant from the placenta through the umbilical cord to the child is restricted during contractions. Cocaine also constricts the passage of blood dramatically but benzoy-lecgonine does not. Dr. Kandall admitted that it is theoretically possible that cocaine or other substances can pass between a mother and her baby during the thirty-to-sixty-second period after the child is born and before the umbilical cord is cut, but that the amount would be tiny.

I submit there was no medical testimony adequate to support the trial court’s finding that a “delivery” occurred here during the birthing process, even if the criminal statute is applicable. The expert witnesses all testified about blood flow from the umbilical cord to child. But that blood flow is the child’s and the placenta through which it flows, is not part of the mother’s body. No witness testified in this case that any cocaine derivatives passed from the mother’s womb to the placenta during the sixty-to-ninety seconds after the child was expelled from the birth canal. That is when any “delivery” would have to have taken place under this statute, from one “person” to another “person.”

Further, there was no evidence that Johnson timed her dosage of cocaine so as to be able to transmit some small amount after her child’s birth. Predicting the day or hour of a child’s birth is difficult to impossible even for experts. Had Johnson given birth one or two days later, the cocaine would have been completely eliminated, and no “crime” would have occurred. But since she went into labor which progressed to birth after taking cocaine when she did, the only way Johnson could have prevented the “delivery” would have been to have severed the cord before the child was born which, of course, would probably have killed both herself and her child. This illustrates the absurdity of applying the delivery-of-a-drug statute to this scenario.

However, in my view, the primary question in this case is whether section 893.-13(l)(c)l. was intended by the Legislature to apply to the birthing process. Before Johnson can be prosecuted under this statute, it must be clear that the Legislature intended for it to apply to the delivery of cocaine derivatives to a newborn during a sixty-to-ninety second interval, before severance of the umbilical cord. I can find no case where “delivery” of a drug was based on an involuntary act such as diffusion and blood flow.3 Criminal statutes must be *1293 strictly — not loosely — construed. § 775.-021(1), Fla.Stat. (1989); Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1991); State v. Jackson, 526 So.2d 58 (Fla.1988); Ferguson v. State, 377 So.2d 709 (Fla.1979).

Further, in construing a statute, we must consider its history, the evil to be corrected, the intention of the Legislature, the subject to be regulated and the objects to be attained. Singleton v. Larson, 46 So.2d 186 (Fla.1950). Legislative intent is the polestar by which the courts must be guided. State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla.1981); Singleton 46 So.2d at 189; Philip Crosby Associates, Inc. v. State Board of Independent Colleges, 506 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Osteen v. Morris, 481 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Legislative intent may be express or it may be gathered from the purpose of the act, the administrative construction of it, other legislative acts bearing upon the subject, and all the circumstances surrounding and attendant upon it. City of St. Petersburg v. Carter, 39 So.2d 804 (Fla.1949). My review of other pertinent legislative enactments, specifically chapter 415, leads me to conclude in this case that the Legislature expressly chose to treat the problem of drug dependent mothers and newborns as a public health problem and that it considered but rejected imposing criminal sanctions, via section 893.13(l)(c)l.

In 1982, sections 415.501-514 were enacted to deal with the problem of child abuse and neglect. The Legislature determined that because of the impact that abuse or neglect has on a victimized child, siblings, family structure, and inevitably on all citizens of the state, the prevention of child abuse and neglect is a priority of this state. § 415.501, Fla. Stat. (1989). To further this end, the Legislature required that a comprehensive approach for the prevention of abuse and neglect of children be developed for the state. Id. The statute defined an “abused or neglected child” as a child whose physical or mental health or welfare was harmed, or threatened with harm, by the acts of omissions of the parent or other person responsible for the child’s welfare. As originally defined, “harm” included physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, exploitation, abandonment, and neglect. § 415.503(7), Fla. Stat. (1983)

In 1987, a bill was proposed to broaden the definition of “harm” to include physical dependency of a newborn infant upon certain controlled drugs. However, there was a concern among legislators that this language might authorize criminal prosecutions of mothers who give birth to drug-dependent children. Comment, A Response to “Cocaine Babies” — Amendment of Florida’s Child Abuse and Neglect Laws to Encompass Infants Born Drug Dependent, 15 Fla.S.U.L.Rev. 865, 877 (1987).4 The bill was then amended to provide that no parent of a drug-dependent newborn shall be subject to criminal investigation solely on the basis of the infant’s drug dependency. In the words of the sponsor of the House bill:

This clearly states that the individual would not be subject to any investigation solely upon the basis of the infant’s drug dependency.

The prime purpose of this bill is to keep the families intact. It’s not for the purpose of investigation.

* * * * sfc *

Again, there is a well-founded anxiety that we are looking to arrest Moms. We’re not looking to do that. What we are looking to do is we’re looking to intervene on behalf of many different state policies....

*1294The bill was passed by the Legislature and the changes were codified in section 415.-503(9)(a)2. Ch. 87-90 § 1, Laws of Fla.

From this legislative history, it is clear that the Legislature considered and rejected a specific statutory provision authorizing criminal penalties against mothers for delivering drug-affected children who received transfer of an illegal drug derivative metabolized by the mother’s body, in úte-ro. In light of this express legislative statement, I conclude that the Legislature never intended for the general drug delivery statute to authorize prosecutions of those mothers who take illegal drugs close enough in time to childbirth that a doctor could testify that a tiny amount passed from mother to child in the few seconds before the umbilical cord was cut. Criminal prosecution of mothers like Johnson will undermine Florida’s express policy of “keeping families intact” and could destroy the family by incarcerating the child’s mother when alternative measures could protect the child and stabilize the family. Comment, A Response to “Cocaine Babies”, 15 Fla.S.U.L.Rev. at 881.

In similar cases in which charges have been brought against mothers after delivery of drug-affected newborns, those charges have been dismissed. See People v. Hardy, 188 Mich.App. 305, 469 N.W.2d 50 (1991); People v. Bremer, No. 90-32227-FH (Mich.Cir.Ct. January 31, 1991); State v. Gray, 1990 WL 125695, No. L-89-239 (Ohio Ct.App. August 31, 1990), jurisdictional motion allowed, 57 Ohio St.3d 711, 568 N.E.2d 695 (1991). In People v. Bremer, the defendant was charged with delivery of cocaine to her newborn daughter after urine samples from the defendant and child following birth tested positive for benzoylecgonine. The circuit court concluded that the Michigan Legislature never intended to include the action of the defendant under the delivery statute:

To interpret this section to cover ingestion of cocaine by a pregnant woman would be a radical incursion upon existing law. A person may not be punished for a crime unless her acts fall clearly within the language of the statute. The specific language of this act does not allow the strained construction advanced by the prosecution.

Neither judges nor prosecutors can make criminal laws. This is the purview of the Legislature. If the Legislature wanted to punish the uterine transfer of cocaine from a mother to her fetus, it would be up to the Legislature to consider the attending public policy and constitutional arguments and then pass its legislation. The Legislature has not done so and the court has no power to make such a law.

The Michigan court also rejected the prosecutor’s argument that charging women with delivery of controlled substances to their newborns provides a strong deterrent against unlawful use of drugs by pregnant women and prompts them to drug treatment. The court noted that prosecution of these women would likely have the opposite effect. A woman may abort her child or avoid prenatal care or treatment out of fear of prosecution. Thus the court concluded that the state’s interest was better served by making treatment programs available to pregnant addicts rather than driving them away from treatment by criminal sanctions.

In State v. Gray, the defendant was indicted for child endangering based on her use of cocaine during the last trimester of pregnancy. The trial court concluded that the child endangering statute did not apply to this situation and dismissed the charge against her. On appeal, the state of Ohio argued that the trial court had failed to consider the time the fetus is a child and still attached to the mother and the duty of care created at that point. The appellate court concluded that the Ohio General Assembly did not intend to criminalize the passage of harmful substances from a mother to a child in the brief moments from birth to the severance of the umbilical cord. “To construe the statute in this manner would mean that every expectant woman who ingested a substance with the potential of harm to her child, e.g., alcohol or nicotine, would be criminally liable under [the child endangering statute]. We do not *1295believe such result was intended by the General Assembly.”

There can be no doubt that drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 1395, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989). Of particular concern is the alarming rise in the number of babies born with cocaine in their systems as a result of cocaine use by pregnant women. Some experts estimate that as many as eleven percent of pregnant women have used an illegal drug during pregnancy, and of those women, seventy-five percent have used cocaine. Report of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, Legal Interventions During Pregnancy, 264 JAMA 2663 (Nov. 28, 1990). Others estimate that 375,000 newborns per year are born to women who are users of illicit drugs. American Public Health Association 1990 Policy Statement.

It is well-established that the effects of cocaine use by a pregnant woman on her fetus and later on her newborn can be severe. On average, cocaine-exposed babies have lower birth weights, shorter body lengths at birth, and smaller head circumferences than normal infants. 264 JAMA at 2666. Cocaine use may also result in sudden infant death syndrome, neural-behavioral deficiencies as well as other medical problems and long-term developmental abnormalities. American Public Health Association 1990 Policy Statement. The basic problem of damaging the fetus by drug use during pregnancy should not be addressed piecemeal, however, by prosecuting users who deliver their babies close in time to use of drugs and ignoring those who simply use drugs during their pregnancy.

Florida could possibly have elected to make in útero transfers criminal. But it chose to deal with this problem in other ways. One way is to allow evidence of drug use by women as a ground for removal of the child to the custody of protective services, as was done in this case. Some states have responded to this crisis by charging women with child abuse and neglect. See In re Baby X, 97 Mich.App. 111, 293 N.W.2d 736 (1980) (newborn suffering from narcotics withdrawal symptoms due to prenatal maternal drug addiction is neglected and within jurisdiction of the probate court); In re Smith, 128 Misc.2d 976, 492 N.Y.S.2d 331 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1985) (person under Family Court Act includes unborn child who is neglected as the result of mother’s conduct); In re Ruiz, 27 Ohio Misc.2d 31, 27 O.B.R. 350, 500 N.E.2d 935 (Com.Pl.1986) (mother’s use of heroin close to baby’s birth created substantial risk to the health of the child and constituted child abuse).

However, prosecuting women for using drugs and “delivering” them to their newborns appears to be the least effective response to this crisis.5 Rather than face the *1296possibility of prosecution, pregnant women who are substance abusers may simply avoid prenatal or medical cafe for fear of being detected. Yet the newborns of these women are, as a group, the most fragile and sick, and most in need of hospital neonatal care. A decision to deliver these babies “at home” will have tragic and serious consequences. As the Board of Trustees Reports notes:

[CJriminal penalties may exacerbate the harm done to fetal health by deterring pregnant substance abusers from obtaining help or care from either the health or public welfare professions, the very people who are best able to prevent future abuse. The California Medical Association has noted:

While unhealthy behavior cannot be condoned, to bring criminal charges against a pregnant woman for activities which may be harmful to her fetus is inappropriate. Such prosecution is counterproductive to the public interest as it may discourage a woman from seeking prenatal care or dissuade her from providing accurate information to health care providers out of fear of self-incrimination. This failure to seek proper care or to withhold vital information concerning her health could increase the risks to herself and her baby.

Florida’s Secretary of Health and Rehabilitative Services has also observed that potential prosecution under existing child abuse or drug use statutes already ‘makes many potential reporters reluctant to identify women as substance abusers.’ (footnotes omitted)

264 JAMA at 2669. See also Commonwealth v. Pellegrini, No. 87970 (Mass. Superior Court Oct. 15, 1990) (by imposing criminal sanctions, women may turn away from seeking prenatal care for fear of being discovered, undermining the interests of the state in protecting potential human life). Prosecution of pregnant women for engaging in activities harmful to their fetuses or newborns may also unwittingly increase the incidence of abortion.6

Such considerations have led the American Medical Association Board of Trustees to oppose criminal sanctions for harmful behavior by a pregnant woman toward her fetus and to advocate that pregnant substance abusers be provided with rehabilitative treatment appropriate to their specific psychological and physiological needs. 264 JAMA at 2670. Likewise, the American Public Health Association has adopted the view that the use of illegal drugs by pregnant women is a public health problem. It also recommends that no punitive measures be taken against pregnant women who are users of illicit drugs when no other illegal acts, including drug-related offenses, have been committed. See 1990 Policy Statement.

In summary, I would hold that section 893.13(l)(c)l. does not encompass “delivery” of an illegal drug derivative from womb to placenta to umbilical cord to newborn after a child’s birth. If that is the intent of the Legislature, then this statute should be redrafted to clearly address the basic problem of passing illegal substances from mother to child in útero, not just in the birthing process.

Johnson, 578 So.2d at 421-427 (Sharp, J., dissenting) (alteration in original).

Since the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision, several other courts have ruled on issues similar to ones presented in this case. See State v. Gethers, 585 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (child abuse statute did not reach unborn fetus and therefore defendant could not be prosecuted for child abuse based on introduction of cocaine into her own body during the gestation period of her unborn child); see also State v. Gray, 62 Ohio St. 3d 514, 584 N.E.2d 710 (1992) (parent may not be prosecuted for child endangerment for substance abuse occurring before birth of the child); People v. Morabito, 151 Misc.2d 259, 580 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y. City Ct.1992) (mother could not be charged with endangering welfare of child based upon acts endangering unborn child); and Welch v. Commonwealth, No. 90-CA-1189-MR, (Ky.Ct.App. Feb. 7, 1992) (mother could not be charged with criminal abuse of an unborn child for her drug use *1297during pregnancy). At oral argument the State acknowledged that no other jurisdiction has upheld a conviction of a mother for delivery of a controlled substance to an infant through either the umbilical cord or an in útero transmission; nor has the State submitted any subsequent authority to reflect that this fact has changed. The Court declines the State’s invitation to walk down a path that the law, public policy, reason and common sense forbid it to tread. Therefore, we quash the decision below, answer the certified question in the negative, and remand with directions that Johnson’s two convictions be reversed.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.