Florida Constitutional Law Outline

Professor Mills Fall 2009
Introduction
In General
○ The federal Constitution enumerates powers, while state constitutions take them away
○ State constitutions are longer, more easily amended
○ Predate the federal Constitution
History
○ 1838: 1st Constitution
○ 1845: FL from territory to state
○ 1861: US to Confederate (Civil War)
○ 1865: end of Civil War, FL was under military rule
○ 1868: New Constitution. Governor appointed everyone, highly centralized system
○ 1885: New Constitution. Decentralized the government. More electable positions
○ 1968: Revision
○ 1995: Revision commission

Michigan v. Long (p. 15)
○ Conviction for possession of marijuana found by police in the passenger compartment of his car
○ Holding:
– When a state court decision rests primarily on federal law, the Supreme Court will apply federal law
– When a state court decision rests primarily on state law, the Supreme Court will apply state law
– When a state court decision does not clearly state whether it is relying on state or federal law, the Supreme Court will apply federal law
Article I
Article I § 23 Right of Privacy
○ “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. ”

In re T.W. (p. I-2)
○ Parental consent statute: prior to an abortion, a minor must obtain parental permission, or convince a court she is sufficiently mature to make the decision, or the decision is in her best interest
○ Holding:
– Florida’s right to privacy is greater than that implied in the federal Constitution
– The right of privacy is a fundamental right
– The state has the burden to prove the statute furthers a compelling state interest
– The intrusion must accomplish its goal through the use of the least intrusive means
– The right of privacy extends to minors
□ They are “natural persons”
– The statute was unconstitutional

North Florida Women’s Health and Counseling Services (p. I-16)
○ Parental notice statute: prior to an abortion, a minor must notify a parent, or convince a court that she is sufficiently mature, or it is in her best interests
○ An attempt to tone down the “intrusive” prong
○ Holding:
– The statute was unconstitutional

Article 10 § 22 Parental notice of termination of a minor’s pregnancy
(The people amended the constitution)
○ The Legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy right guaranteed to a minor under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Notwithstanding a minor’s right of privacy provided in Section 23 of Article I, the Legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minor’s pregnancy. The Legislature shall provide exceptions to such requirement for notification and shall create a process for judicial waiver of the notification

Schiavo (p. I-37)
○ The right to die is encompassed in the right to privacy
○ The right to die is a fundamental right
○ The right to die applies to people with and without wills

State v. Eitel (p. I-40)
○ A statute that requires motorcyclists to wear helmets is constitutional
○ The preservation of life is a compelling state interest
○ The state’s intrusion is minimal

Florida Board of Bar Examiners (p. I-43)
○ Bar applicant refused to answer question concerning mental health
○ Holding:
– There is a circumscribed right of privacy when applying for a privilege
– Ensuring that only those fit to practice law are admitted to the Bar is a compelling state interest
– The inquiry was the least intrusive means
– The Board of Bar Examiners listened to the dissent, and amended the question

Privacy analysis:
Is there an expectation of privacy?
Is there a compelling state interest?
Is the intrusion the least intrusive means?

Stall v. State (p. I-48)
○ Stall charged with selling obscene material
○ Holding:
– There is a right to possess obscene materials
– The right to possess privately does not equate to the right to sell publicly

Post-Newsweek Stations v. Doe (p. I-63)
○ News media wanted the list of Does in a prostitution ring
– The list became public records, but Doe wanted them sealed
○ Holding:
– Closure of court records occur to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties
– Privacy rights are not implicated when a person participates in a crime

State v. Rolling (p. I-68)
○ Motion requesting non-disclosure of murder scene and autopsy photographs and videos
○ Holding:
– Photographs of the bodies of the victims are public records
– The public’s interest in the disclosure of public records is to be balanced against the privacy rights of the subjects of those records
– Photographs of nude and mutilated bodies of the victims would be subject to a right to privacy were the victims still alive
– Relatives of victims may claim a right of privacy to prevent the direct trauma, sorrow, and humiliation which they might suffer from public display of intimate photographs of the mutilated bodies of their children
– The Test:
□ Balance the public’s right to know against the residual privacy of the victims’ relatives
– The public could see the photos, but not remove them

Public records
○ Autopsy photos and crime scene photos for a trial are public records

Right to privacy for relatives
○ Has to be a close relative
○ Nature of the information has to be intrusive

Test and balancing
○ Protecting defendants who are facing prison or death
○ Verifying the integrity of investigations
○ Balance the public’s right to know against the residual privacy interest of the victim’s relatives

Hypothetical
○ If the accuracy of a written autopsy is in question, the public right to know may pass the burden required to disclose the photos

City of North Miami v. Kurtz (p. I-74)
○ Issue: Does Right to Privacy prohibit a city from requiring job applicants to refrain from using tobacco for one year before applying for a job?
○ Holding:
– The city’s action did not intrude into an aspect in which someone has a legitimate expectation of privacy
□ In today’s society, smokers are constantly required to reveal whether they smoke

Hypothetical
○ Public job asks about sexual promiscuity
– Probably wouldn’t pass constitutional muster, because it intrudes into an aspect of life in which someone has a legitimate expectation of privacy

Krischer v. McIver (p. I-77)
○ Patient and doctor filed suit for declaratory judgment that a prohibition of assisted suicide was unconstitutional
○ Holding:
– The state has a legitimate interest in
1. The preservation of life
2. The protection of innocent third parties
3. The prevention of suicide
4. The maintenance of the ethical integrity of the medical profession
– The statute was not unconstitutional
○ Distinction from Schiavo
– Allowing death v. causing death
– Question about what Schiavo wanted v. Krischer knew what he wanted
Article I, Section 12 Searches and Seizures
○ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, the thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Bernie v. State (p. I-87)
○ An envelope addressed to petitioner wife broke open during transit, revealing cocaine. Police obtained a search warrant for petitioners’, husband and wife, residence relative to the prospective controlled delivery of the cocaine. A few minutes after the controlled delivery, police executed the warrant, arrested petitioners, and charged them with possession of cocaine.
○ Petitioners sought to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was the product of an unreasonable search and seizure
○ Holding:
– Florida courts should apply Article I Section 12 as construed by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 4th Amendment
□ Even the opinions issued in the future
– The anticipatory search warrant issued was constitutional

State v. Wells (p. I-97)
○ During respondent’s arrest for driving under the influence, respondent gave a trooper permission to look in the trunk but not the passenger compartment of the car. Upon opening the trunk, the trooper found a suitcase, forced it open and found marijuana. The car was impounded and a search of the ashtray revealed marijuana.
○ The Court held:
– Consent search
□ Consent extends to what consent is given to
□ The respondent gave consent to open the trunk, but not the suitcase inside
– Inventory search
□ Whatever is found during standard police procedures is valid
□ Cannot be a substitute for consent or probably cause searches
□ Applies to any impoundment (towing, wreck, traffic stop, etc.)
– Impoundment
□ Is valid if it is reasonable