Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The federal constitution's implicit privacy provision extends only to such fundamental interests as marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and the rearing and educating of children. The "right to smoke" is not included within the penumbra of fundamental rights protected.
The City of North Miami issued N. Miami, Fla. Admin. Reg. 1-46, which required all job applicants to sign an affidavit stating that they had not used tobacco for at least one year immediately preceding their application for employment. Respondent applicant sought employment with petitioner. In an interview, respondent stated she was smoker. Respondent was, therefore, ineligible for employment. She filed suit to enjoin enforcement of Reg. 1-46 and requested a judgment declaring Reg. 1-46 unconstitutional. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court found respondent had a fundamental right of privacy under Fla. Const. art. I, § 23. However, the trial court granted the motion because respondent had no expectation of privacy in employment. Respondent subsequently sought review. The district court reversed the decision, holding respondent's privacy rights were implicated, and Reg. 1-46 violated her privacy rights under art. I, § 23. Petitioner then sought review through a certified question.
Did Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution prohibit a municipality from requiring job applicants to refrain from using tobacco or tobacco products for one year before applying for, and as a condition for being considered for employment, even where the use of tobacco was not related to job function in the position sought by the applicant?
The court answered the question in the negative, quashed the district court's order, and remanded with directions to affirm the trial court, because Florida's constitutional privacy provision did not provide protection to respondent. According to the court, the federal privacy provision extended only to such fundamental interests as marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and the rearing and educating of children. As such, the City’s action did not intrude into an aspect of respondent’s life in which she has a legitimate expectation of privacy.