Grose v. Firestone, 62796

Decision Date01 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 62796,62796
Citation422 So.2d 303
PartiesDouglas L. GROSE, Thomas P. Fox, and Committee for Constitutional Education, Appellants, v. George FIRESTONE, Secretary of State, and Dorothy Glisson, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, Appellees.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Thomas P. Fox, and Douglas Leon Grose of Anderson, Thorne, Grose & Quesada, Tampa, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Eric J. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellees.

Arthur I. Jacobs, Fernandina Beach, and Raymond L. Marky, Tallahassee, for Florida Pros. Attys. Ass'n, Florida Police Chiefs Ass'n, Fraternal Order of Police and IMPACT, appellees-intervenors.

Ronald A. Labasky of Madigan, Parker, Gatline, Swedmark & Skelding, Tallahassee, for Florida Sheriffs Ass'n, amicus curiae.

ALDERMAN, Chief Justice.

This cause has been certified to us by the District Court of Appeal, First District, pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5), Florida Constitution. Since this is a matter of great public importance requiring immediate resolution, we accept jurisdiction to review the judgment of the circuit court which holds that there is no constitutional or statutory impairment which would warrant interference with the submission to the voters of Amendment 2 on the ballot of the November 2, 1982, election. We agree with the trial court and affirm its judgment.

Amendment 2 is a proposed amendment to article I, section 12, Florida Constitution, relating to the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. On June 24, 1982, House Joint Resolution No. 31-H was filed in the office of the Secretary of State. This Resolution provides:

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 12, Article I of the State Constitution, relating to searches and seizures, to provide a rule of construction and to limit the exclusion of evidence.

Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

That the following amendment to Section 12 of Article I of the State Constitution

is hereby agreed to and shall be submitted to the electors of this state for approval or rejection at the general election to be held in November 1982.

ARTICLE I

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 12. Searches and seizures.--The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following statement be placed on the ballot:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

ARTICLE I, SECTION 12

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.--Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to provide that the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and to provide that illegally seized articles or information are inadmissible if decisions of the United States Supreme Court make such evidence inadmissible.

Appellants initiated this challenge to Amendment 2 on October 22, 1982, by the filing of a petition for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin George Firestone, as the Secretary of State, and Dorothy Glisson, as Deputy Secretary for Elections, from placing the proposed amendment on the November 2, 1982, ballot. On October 26, 1982, an amended petition was filed requesting injunctive and declaratory relief.

After hearing arguments for appellants and appellees and arguments of amicus curiae on behalf of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Florida Police Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and Independent Minded People Against Crime Today, and the Florida Sheriffs Association, the trial court, in a succinct order, denied the petition for preliminary injunction and dismissed the amended petition with prejudice.

Appellants appealed to the District Court of Appeal, First District, but requested that the district court certify the judgment to us for immediate resolution.

Appellants initially contend that the trial court erred in not granting their request for preliminary injunction since the ballot summary of the proposed amendment is misleading and does not fully advise the electors of the effect of the amendment. Appellants submit that although the chief purpose of the joint resolution proposing the amendment is to provide a rule of construction and to limit the exclusion of evidence in criminal cases, the ballot summary only discloses that the state constitution is to be amended to provide that article I, section 12, is to be construed in conformity with the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellants suggest that the ballot summary fails to disclose or put voters on notice of the total effect of this amendment. We disagree with appellants and hold that the ballot summary clearly and unambiguously gives voters notice of the effect of this amendment.

Section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1981), which sets out the prerequisites for submission of a constitutional amendment or other public measure to the vote of the people, states in pertinent part:

Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot .... The wording of the substance of the amendment or other public measure and the ballot title to appear on the ballot shall be embodied in the joint resolution .... The substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of....

Recently in Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, (Fla.1982), we said that the purpose of section 101.161 is to assure that the electorate is advised of the meaning and ramifications of the amendment. We said:

The requirement for proposed constitutional amendment ballots is the same as for all ballots, i.e.,

that the voter should not be misled and that he have an opportunity to know and be on notice as to the proposition on which he is to cast his vote.... All that the Constitution requires or that the law compels or ought to compel is that the voter have notice of that which he must decide.... What the law requires is that the ballot be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot.

Hill v. Milander, 72 So.2d 796, 798 (Fla.1954) (emphasis supplied).

Simply put, the ballot must give the voter fair notice of the decision he must make. Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981 (Fla.1981)....

Id., at p. 155.

The wording of the ballot summary of proposed ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Armstrong v. Harris
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 7 d4 Setembro d4 2000
    ...The Court further ruled that the amendment comported with the requirements of section 101.161 and was not misleading.22 In Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d 303 (Fla.1982), the Court reviewed a legislatively proposed amendment that required courts to construe the Unreasonable Searches and Seizu......
  • Crain v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 18 d5 Novembro d5 2005
    ...under this provision is the same because the courts are required to construe it in consonance with the Fourth Amendment. Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d 303 (Fla.1982). Likewise, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.120 does not necessitate a contrary conclusion because that rule simply "conf......
  • State v. Moreno-Gonzalez
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 d3 Setembro d3 2009
    ...on the ballot, asserting that the ballot summary was misleading and did not fully advise the electors of its effect. Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d 303 (Fla.1982). The Florida Supreme Court allowed the measure to remain on the ballot and it was adopted. William A. Buzzett & Deborah K. Kearne......
  • Advisory Opinion to Attorney General Limited Political Terms in Certain Electric Offices, GENERAL--LIMITED
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 19 d4 Dezembro d4 1991
    ...and summary comply with article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution and section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1989). 3 See Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d 303, 306 (Fla.1982) (question of whether proposed amendment violated due process not justiciable in challenge to ballot SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIR......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT