State v. Powell
11 Fla. L. Weekly 557, 497 So. 2d 1188 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute authorizing medical examiners to remove corneal tissue from decedents during a required autopsy, without notice to or consent from the next of kin, is constitutional. The next of kin's interest in a decedent's body is not a fundamental property or liberty right, and such a statute is rationally related to the legitimate legislative objective of restoring sight to the blind.
Facts:
- On June 15, 1983, James White drowned while swimming.
- Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Techman performed an autopsy on James White's body.
- On July 11, 1983, Anthony Powell died in a motor vehicle accident.
- Medical Examiner Dr. William H. Shutze performed an autopsy on Anthony Powell's body.
- In both instances, under the authority of Florida statute § 732.9185, the medical examiners removed corneal tissue from the decedents.
- The parents of James White and Anthony Powell were not notified, and their consent was not sought or obtained, prior to the removal of their sons' corneas.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of James White and Anthony Powell filed separate lawsuits against the medical examiners and the State of Florida in a Florida circuit court (the trial court of first instance).
- The suits sought damages and a declaratory judgment that the cornea removal statute, section 732.9185, was unconstitutional.
- The two cases were consolidated by the trial court.
- On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court found the statute unconstitutional, ruling in favor of the parents.
- The State of Florida and the other defendants appealed the trial court's order.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the case to the Supreme Court of Florida as a question of great public importance requiring immediate resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute authorizing a medical examiner to remove corneal tissue from a decedent under their jurisdiction without notice to or consent from the next of kin violate the next of kin's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, or constitute an unlawful taking of property?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, J.
No, the statute does not violate the next of kin's constitutional rights. A person's constitutional rights terminate at death, and any remaining rights concerning the body belong to the next of kin. The court held that the next of kin do not possess a property right in a decedent's remains; rather, they have a limited common-law right to possess the body for burial, the interference with which may give rise to a tort claim but not a constitutional one. Therefore, the statute does not authorize an unconstitutional taking of property. Furthermore, the right to control a decedent's remains is not a fundamental liberty or privacy right protected by the due process clause, as those rights typically concern ongoing relationships among living persons. Because no fundamental right is at stake, the statute is subject only to rational basis review. The court found that the statute rationally promotes the permissible and laudable state objective of restoring sight to the blind by increasing the quantity and quality of available corneal tissue. The incidental effect on the next of kin does not violate equal protection, and because no protectable property or liberty interest exists, a procedural due process analysis is unnecessary.
Dissenting - Shaw, J.
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional as it infringes on the rights of the next of kin. The majority erred by deciding the case on summary judgment without a full factual record. The next of kin have a common-law right, existing since 'time immemorial,' to possess and control the body of a deceased family member. This right is protected by the Florida Constitution as a retained right and, more specifically, as a 'quintessential privacy right' to be free from government intrusion in such a personal matter. The state's power to interfere is limited to narrow public health and safety concerns, not 'bureaucratic convenience, curiosity, [or] pecuniary gain.' The dissent argues that other Florida statutes governing organ donation are premised on the family's right to control the decedent's organs, which contradicts the majority's conclusion. The case should be remanded for a full trial to determine if the statute was applied correctly and constitutionally before ruling on its facial validity.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the next of kin's rights in a decedent's body are not fundamental constitutional rights, but rather limited common-law rights for the purpose of burial. By applying the rational basis test, the court significantly lowered the bar for state legislatures to pass laws that interfere with those rights in the service of a public good. This ruling gives substantial deference to legislative policy choices that balance societal needs, such as organ and tissue procurement, against the private, emotional interests of a decedent's family. It provides a legal foundation for 'presumed consent' or 'routine removal' statutes, potentially impacting future legislation regarding organ donation and medical research.
