Florida Constitutional Law Flashcards

A Florida resident owns a one-acre parcel of land located entirely within the city limits of Miami. The resident's home is situated on the property, which they claim as their homestead for creditor protection purposes. A creditor obtains a judgment against the resident for an unpaid credit card debt. Which of the following accurately describes the extent of homestead protection the resident has from this judgment creditor?

Answer: Only one-half acre of the contiguous land, including the residence, is exempt from forced sale.

Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides that homestead property located within a municipality is protected from forced sale by creditors to the extent of one-half acre of contiguous land. Since the resident's property is one full acre within city limits, only one-half acre is protected. The remaining half-acre can be subject to forced sale to satisfy the judgment. The protection is based on acreage within a municipality, not the total size of the parcel or a specific monetary value for creditor purposes.

The Florida Legislature passes a comprehensive bill during its regular session. The bill, titled 'An act relating to public safety,' includes provisions that (1) increase the penalties for felony DUIs, (2) establish new training requirements for law enforcement officers, and (3) redirect funds from public education to build a new state prison. A citizens' group challenges the validity of the law. What is the strongest constitutional basis for their challenge?

Answer: The law violates the single-subject rule as stated in the Florida Constitution.

Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution requires that every law 'shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith.' This is known as the single-subject rule. A bill that addresses DUI penalties, officer training, and prison funding from education funds likely contains multiple, discordant subjects (criminal justice, law enforcement administration, and appropriations/education) under one title, making it vulnerable to a challenge for violating the single-subject rule.

Which of the following is NOT a valid method for proposing an amendment to the Florida Constitution?

Answer: An executive order by the Governor, subsequently ratified by a simple majority of the legislature.

Article XI of the Florida Constitution outlines the five methods for proposing amendments: (1) Legislative Joint Resolution, (2) Constitutional Convention, (3) Citizen Initiative, (4) Constitution Revision Commission, and (5) Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. The Governor has no power to propose constitutional amendments via executive order; this would violate the separation of powers doctrine.

A new state statute requires all individuals seeking a license to operate a hot dog stand to submit to a mandatory DNA test, with the sample stored in a state database for public health research. A group of vendors challenges the law under the Florida Constitution. How will a Florida court most likely analyze the constitutionality of this statute?

Answer: Under strict scrutiny, because Florida's express right to privacy is implicated by the mandatory collection of DNA.

Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution provides an explicit, freestanding right of privacy: 'Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life.' This right is broader than the federal right to privacy. Any governmental intrusion into this right requires the state to prove a compelling state interest and that the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (strict scrutiny). The mandatory collection and storage of DNA is a significant intrusion into privacy, triggering this high standard of review.

To reduce court backlogs, the Florida Legislature passes a law completely abolishing the common law cause of action for negligence and provides no alternative remedy for those injured by the carelessness of others. The statute is challenged by an individual who was injured in a car accident. On what grounds is this law most likely to be found unconstitutional in Florida?

Answer: Violation of the constitutional right of access to courts.

Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution guarantees the right of access to courts. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the legislature violates this provision if it abolishes a common law right of action without providing a reasonable alternative to protect the rights of the people to redress for injuries. Simply eliminating a cause of action like negligence without a substitute remedy is a classic violation of the access to courts doctrine.

The Florida Legislature passes a statute creating a 'Legislative Veto Committee,' composed of six state representatives and six state senators. The statute grants this committee the power to nullify any rule promulgated by an executive branch agency if the committee deems the rule to be an overreach of the agency's statutory authority. An executive agency, whose rule was nullified by the committee, challenges the statute. What is the most likely outcome?

Answer: The statute is unconstitutional as it violates the separation of powers doctrine.

The Florida Constitution, under Article II, Section 3, explicitly divides governmental powers into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and prohibits a person from one branch from exercising powers of another. While the legislature can delegate rulemaking authority to an executive agency, it cannot retain the power to unilaterally veto those rules outside of the proper legislative process (i.e., passing a new law). A 'legislative veto' is an unconstitutional encroachment on the executive branch's power to execute the laws, thereby violating the separation of powers.