forms the basis of this case is unambiguously described by that provision. (Footnote omitted; citation omitted). The majority noted: [W]e do not consider the propriety of a prosecution for any of the numerous fact patterns which might arise under other alternative additional portions of the statute, including some of the horribles, as paraded by the appellee, which seem to have frightened the trial judge. We may say, however, that ordinary rules of construction which require that a statute be read so as to avoid unconstitutional results, and absurd ones, would preclude any determination that it would be a felony for a visitor to carry a personal letter or a five dollar bill in his pocket or, indeed, to wear clothing while at a jail. See State v. Hardee, 504 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). A reasonable construction of this
holding statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to mere possession of money on jail premises holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding the aeca and its implementing regulations not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendants