Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
10 Fla. L. Weekly 548, 477 So. 2d 544 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While Florida's constitutional right to privacy recognizes a legitimate expectation of privacy in financial institution records, it does not prevent a state agency from subpoenaing a citizen's bank records, including all of them, without notice, provided the agency demonstrates a compelling state interest and employs the least intrusive means to achieve its goal in a relevant investigation.
Facts:
- The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, a state agency, was conducting an investigation.
- As part of this investigation, the Division issued subpoenas duces tecum to various banking institutions.
- These subpoenas sought the complete banking records for accounts belonging to Nigel Winfield and Malcolm Winfield.
- The Division did not provide any notice of these subpoenas to Nigel Winfield or Malcolm Winfield.
- The Division specifically requested the banks not to inform the Winfields about the ongoing investigation or the issuance of the subpoenas.
Procedural Posture:
- The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, issued subpoenas duces tecum to banks for Nigel and Malcolm Winfield's financial records without notifying them.
- Clifton Winfield, Nigel Winfield, Nikki Winfield, and Frank Marano (Petitioners) filed for declaratory and injunctive relief in a Florida circuit court, asserting the subpoenas were invalid and violated their constitutional rights to privacy and due process.
- The circuit court found that the Division had probable cause and acted within its authority but granted petitioners relief, restraining the Division from inspecting or using the records and ordering them sealed, based on privacy concerns.
- The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering appealed the circuit court's decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, reversing the circuit court's injunction, and then certified two questions of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, which guarantees a right to privacy, prevent a state agency from subpoenaing a citizen's complete bank records without prior notice during an investigation, or constitute an impermissible exercise of legislative power?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Adkins
No, Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution does not prevent the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering from subpoenaing a Florida citizen's bank records without notice, nor does subpoenaing all of a citizen's bank records under these facts constitute an impermissible exercise of legislative power. The Court recognized that Florida's Article I, Section 23 establishes a fundamental right to privacy, which is broader in scope than the federal Fourth Amendment, and thereby recognizes a legitimate expectation of privacy in financial institution records, unlike the federal standard established in United States v. Miller. For any governmental intrusion on this fundamental right, the state must satisfy the "compelling state interest" standard, meaning the intrusion must serve a compelling state interest and be achieved through the least intrusive means. The Court found that the state's interest in conducting effective investigations in the pari-mutuel industry constitutes a compelling state interest. Furthermore, it determined that subpoenaing bank records without prior notice was the least intrusive means to achieve this interest, emphasizing that predisclosure notification by banks to customers is not mandated by the Florida Constitution. Regarding the breadth of the subpoenas, the Court held that the subpoenaing of all bank records was permissible because the information was essential to the inquiry, and the agency, rather than the bank or depositor, must determine what is relevant for a complete investigation, so long as the subpoenas are reasonably calculated to obtain relevant information. Chief Justice Boyd, and Justices Overton, Ehrlich and Shaw concurred. Justice McDonald concurred in the result only.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it was the first time the Florida Supreme Court explicitly articulated the "compelling state interest" standard for evaluating governmental intrusions into an individual's right to privacy under the state's Article I, Section 23. It solidified Florida's position as providing broader privacy protections than the federal constitution regarding bank records. However, the ruling also balanced this robust privacy right with the state's compelling interest in effective regulatory investigations, establishing a framework where even fundamental privacy rights can be overcome when critical state functions require it through narrowly tailored means.
