section 23 right to privacy in Florida

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

1990State v. Hume, 512 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1987).

2014Beagle, 678 So.2d at 1275 .

2011The court in State v. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), stated that the right to privacy protected by Article I, Section 23, of the Florida Constitution is not absolute; and the test for a violation of this right comes from Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544, 547 (Fla. 1985): The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a test to assess the claim of an article I, section 23 privacy violation: First, courts must determine whether the individual possesses a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information or subject at issue.

2006The husband has appealed the order requiring the filing of a financial affidavit primarily raising two grounds: (1) that the order violates his right to privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, and (2) that the circuit court erred by failing to follow Salczman v. Joquiel, 776 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and Varrieur v. Varrieur, 775 So.2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

2006The husband has appealed the order requiring the filing of a financial affidavit primarily raising two grounds: (1) that the order violates his right to privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, and (2) that the circuit court erred by failing to follow Salczman v. Joquiel, 776 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and Varrieur v. Varrieur, 775 So.2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

2004In my view, that is a distinction without a difference as relates to a person's right to privacy under section 23. [14] As Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote while discussing the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, "the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating `from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.'" Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 521 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961))). [15] I find the majority's reliance on State v

2002In G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), this court held, in circumstances such as in this case, that where a child is born to an intact marriage and is recognized by the husband and wife as their child, the husband is deemed the legal father to the exclusion of all others and a man claiming to be the child's biological father has no common law, statutory or constitutional right to sue for paternity.

1999In closing, we also note that Mr. Thompson did not have a right to privacy in his telephone conversation with the victim because a "`wrongdoer who voluntarily speaks to another of his wrongdoings, only has the hope or expectation, not a constitutionally protected right, that the other person will not breach his confidence....'" State v. Stout, 693 So.2d 657, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168, 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 636 (Fla.1980)). [4] JUDGMENTS and SENTENCES AFFIRMED.

1988Conversely, the courts have failed to extend the constitutional right of privacy guarantee of section 23 to an individual's bank records subpoenaed by a state agency, Winfield, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1985), a bar application's requirement for disclosure of psychological and medical treatment, Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re: Applicant, 443 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1983), and to the criminalization of private possession of cannabis, Maisler v. State, 425 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1983).

1988Conversely, the courts have failed to extend the constitutional right of privacy guarantee of section 23 to an individual's bank records subpoenaed by a state agency, Winfield, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1985), a bar application's requirement for disclosure of psychological and medical treatment, Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re: Applicant, 443 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1983), and to the criminalization of private possession of cannabis, Maisler v. State, 425 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1983).

1988The section 23 privacy provision has been held operative in such disparate contexts as the denial of an AIDS victim's discovery request for the names and addresses of blood donors after he contracted AIDS following blood transfusions, Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Serv., 500 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1987), and the right of an incompetent patient to have a feeding tube removed so as not to maintain life artificially, Corbett v. D'Alessandro, 487 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 1986).

1988Conversely, the courts have failed to extend the constitutional right of privacy guarantee of section 23 to an individual's bank records subpoenaed by a state agency, Winfield, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1985), a bar application's requirement for disclosure of psychological and medical treatment, Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re: Applicant, 443 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1983), and to the criminalization of private possession of cannabis, Maisler v. State, 425 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1983).

1988Conversely, the courts have failed to extend the constitutional right of privacy guarantee of section 23 to an individual's bank records subpoenaed by a state agency, Winfield, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1985), a bar application's requirement for disclosure of psychological and medical treatment, Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re: Applicant, 443 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1983), and to the criminalization of private possession of cannabis, Maisler v. State, 425 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1983).

1988The section 23 privacy provision has been held operative in such disparate contexts as the denial of an AIDS victim's discovery request for the names and addresses of blood donors after he contracted AIDS following blood transfusions, Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Serv., 500 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1987), and the right of an incompetent patient to have a feeding tube removed so as not to maintain life artificially, Corbett v. D'Alessandro, 487 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 1986).

1987Finally, I question the court's reliance upon the three-prong test set forth in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. State, 363 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), a test which was fashioned for criminal cases and which does not seem appropriate for application in civil cases.