DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, AND ITS DIVISION OF FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, APPELLANT,
v.
TERRY R. MCINTYRE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-01-19
No. 95-1251
MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
680 So. 2d 453 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida Highway Patrol appealed a temporary restraining order preventing it from interviewing FHP Captain McIntyre about a 1989 off-duty automobile accident. McIntyre sought injunctive relief claiming an unconstitutional invasion of privacy under the Florida Constitution. The court affirmed the TRO, holding that while FHP may interview McIntyre about job-related matters, FHP failed to establish that the sought information involved official duties rather than personal matters.


Holding

While FHP may interview McIntyre about matters directly relating to the performance of his official duties, the trial court properly issued a TRO because FHP failed to establish that the information it sought involved job-related matters rather than personal matters in which McIntyre has a reasonable expectation of privacy.


Headnotes

[1] A party seeking to overcome a claim of privacy must establish that the information sought relates directly to the performance of official duties.

[2] An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal matters unrelated to the performance of job-related duties.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“although we agree that FHP may interview McIntyre about matters directly relating to the performance of his official duties, we affirm the trial court's order, as it has not been established that the TRO has no basis in the pleadings and the evidence, or is illegal.”

Establishes the court's holding that while FHP has interview authority for job-related matters, it failed to demonstrate that the sought information was job-related.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

FHP Captain Terry McIntyre was involved in a 1989 off-duty automobile accident involving his personal vehicle that caused no injuries to anyone other …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) appeals a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an order denying a motion to dissolve that TRO. FHP sought to interview FHP Captain Terry R. McIntyre relating to a 1989 off-duty automobile accident involving McIntyre’s own personal vehicle. The accident caused no injuries to anyone other than McIntyre and the FHP conducted a review of the accident in 1989. McIntyre filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging an unconstitutional invasion of his right to privacy under article I, section 23 of the' Florida Constitution. He sought and obtained a TRO precluding any interview with regard to the accident until his complaint could be adjudicated.

On appeal, FHP seeks a reversal in reliance upon this court’s decisions in Edwards v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 470 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985), and Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Corbin, 527 So. 2d 868, 872 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1988), contending that McIntyre is required to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, and that he has no legitimate expectations to privacy involving the performance of job-related duties.1 However, in the proceeding below, FHP failed to establish that the information it was seeking from McIntyre involved job-related matters, rather than personal matters in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Thus, although we agree that FHP may interview McIntyre about matters directly relating to the performance of his official duties, we affirm the trial court’s order, as it has not been established that the TRO has no basis in the pleadings and the evidence, or is illegal. Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith, 598 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Zuckerman v. Professional Writers of Florida, 398 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1981); see also City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), approved, 659 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.1995). Our affirmance is without prejudice, however, to FHP seeking to interview Captain McIntyre with respect to matters which FHP establishes are job-related.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla.1985) (before the right to privacy attaches, the individual must establish a reasonable expectation of privacy exists).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw