Case Name: Dean FORSBERG and Walter Freeman, Appellants, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Murray Gilman, Executive Director, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-08-30
Citations: 455 So. 2d 373
Docket Number: No. 54623
Parties: Dean FORSBERG and Walter Freeman, Appellants, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Murray Gilman, Executive Director, Appellees.
Judges: BOYD, C.J., and ALDERMAN, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 455
Pages: 373–380

Head Matter:
Dean FORSBERG and Walter Freeman, Appellants, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Murray Gilman, Executive Director, Appellees.
No. 54623.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 30, 1984.
Lester C. Wisotsky, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Miami, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Mitchell D. Franks, Chief Trial Counsel, Tallahassee, and John A. Ritter, City Atty., and Thomas M. Pflaum, Asst. City Atty., Miami Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dean Forsberg and Walter Freeman, tenants in public housing operated by the Miami Beach Housing Authority, filed a class action seeking to enjoin the housing authority from allowing public access to information provided by public housing te.nants and prospective tenants. The circuit court granted the housing authority's motion to dismiss, finding that chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1977), violated neither article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution nor the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, or fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Forsberg and Freeman appealed the dismissal prior to the 1980 jurisdictional amendment, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution (1972).
We agree with the circuit court. Florida's stated policy is that public records are open for personal inspection. § 119.01. The housing authority is an agency whose records are public. § 119.011. This case, therefore, deals solely with access to public records.
While certain records are statutorily exempted from the public's right to inspect, section 119.07, our examination of the statutes has brought to light no exemption pertaining to the records involved in this appeal. See Rose v. D'Alessandro, 380 So.2d 419 (Fla.1980); Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979). There is, likewise, no state constitutional right of privacy which would shield these records. Prior to the addition of article I, section 23 to the state constitution, this Court had refused to find a general right of disclosural privacy provided for in that document. Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates, Inc., 379 So.2d 633 (Fla.1980). Moreover, adoption of the privacy amendment offers no relief in this case because section 23 specifically does not apply to public records: "This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law." There is also no per se federal constitutional right to disclosural privacy, but, rather, a balancing test is used on a case-by-case basis. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 53 L.Ed.2d 867 (1977); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Shevin v. Byron, Harless.
The legislature has clearly stated that public records shall be open for public inspection. Just as clearly, the instant records are public records. There is no exemption, nor is there a constitutional right of privacy, which prevents their inspection. Any change, exception, or modification must, of necessity, come from the legislature. Wait. We therefore affirm the circuit court's order.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ALDERMAN, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs specially in result with an opinion.
ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.