CourtCases2010

In re tw 551 so 2d at 1192 winfield v division of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: r analysis under federal law is required. See In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 1989). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n5 Article I, Section 23 provides: SECTION 23. Right of Privacy.- Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his 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. Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Article I, section 23, provides that "every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life." Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. This explicit constitutional right of privacy embraces more privacy interests and extends [**6] more protection than the right of privacy provided under the due process clause of the federal constitution. In re T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1192; Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985). As recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in Winfield, the citizens of Florida opted for more protection from governmental intrusion when they approved article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. This amendment is an independent, freestanding constitutional provision which declares the fundamental right to privacy. Article I, section 23 was intentionally phrased in strong terms. The drafters of the amendment rejected the use of the words "unreasonable" or "unwarranted" before the phrase "governmental intrusion" in order to make the privacy right as strong as possible. 477 So. 2d at 548. 60 Before the right of privacy is implicated, however, there must be a legitimate expectation of privacy. Winfield, 477 So. 2d at 547. If there is a legitimate expectation of privacy, the government has the burden of proving that the challenged regulation [**7] serves a compelling state interest and accomplishes its goals through the use of the least intrusive means. Id. The Florida Supreme Court has found a legitimat...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online