Case Name: The STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Petitioner, v. Reverend Henry JACKSON, etc., Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-03-19
Citations: 576 So. 2d 864
Docket Number: No. 90-1042
Parties: The STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Petitioner, v. Reverend Henry JACKSON, etc., Respondent.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 576
Pages: 864–868

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Petitioner, v. Reverend Henry JACKSON, etc., Respondent.
No. 90-1042.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 19, 1991.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Louis F. Hubener, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Rubin, Rubin & Fuqua and Ellis Rubin, A. Hinda Klein, for respondent.
Before BARKDULL, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
LEVY, Judge.
The State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs ["Department"] petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the lower court order setting aside subpoenas it issued to investigate the records and activities of Reverend Henry Jackson pursuant to the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.203(1), Florida Statutes (1989). We grant the Department's Petition for Certiorari and quash the trial court's order setting aside the subpoenas.
The respondent, Jackson, solicited cash and money-order contributions by mail. These solicitations were sent by Jackson from Hialeah, Florida, to individuals in Florida and throughout the United States. In exchange for these contributions, Jackson promised to send the contributor winning lottery numbers he represented were revealed to him by God. Jackson represented that, for the sum of $12.00, the contributor would receive a "financial blessing from God" in the form of a winning lottery number.
After numerous complaints, both inside and outside of Florida, the Department issued an administrative subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, dated March 22, 1989, pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Many of the complaints noted that after contributing the $12.00 to Jackson, the "red-hot" numbers were not winning numbers at all. The majority of these solicitations were sent to individuals living in states with lotteries.
These subpoenas were an initial part of the Department's investigative process in determining whether Jackson had violated any of the proscribed activities delineated by the Act, or, at the very least, to determine if the Act was applicable at all to Jackson's activities. The subpoenas ordered Jackson to appear before an assistant attorney general and produce various records to determine whether Jackson's business practices were in violation of the Act. Jackson filed a petition to set aside the subpoenas. The trial court set aside the subpoenas on the ground that Section 501.203(1) did not apply to Jackson's activities, and the Department now appeals.
Among the Department's contentions, it argues that, based upon the complaints it received, it has a sufficient reason to investigate Jackson's activities. We agree with the Department on this point. The subpoenas issued by the Department were merely investigative in nature and the Department had a right to a careful review of the documents. It may be the case that, after a careful review of the documents and records subpoenaed, the Department might choose not to pursue further actions regarding Jackson's activities. See R. W. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board. of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, 566 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985). We need not render a final determination at this juncture as to whether or not Jackson's activities constitute "consumer transactions" as contemplated by Section 501.203(1). We need only consider whether the Department is entitled to investigate Jackson's activities for the purpose of making further determinations. Accordingly, we find that the Department is entitled to investigate the complaints that it has received and is well within its right to issue the subpoenas to further this purpose.
We reach the same result when addressing Jackson's contention on appeal that his activities are protected by the First Amendment. The instant case deals only with the issuance of investigative subpoenas and is not a determination on the merits of a criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit, where the question of whether Section 501.203(1) conflicts with the appellee's religious freedom must be answered. Therefore, the First Amendment freedom of religion clause is not a bar to the Department's issuance of subpoenas involved herein. From a review of the leading cases governing this area, it is clear that the First Amendment freedom of religion argu ments are not a bar to the enforcement of laws which are directed at conduct rather than belief, have a secular purpose and effect, and are justified by governmental interests in public health, safety and welfare. See Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990); Church of The Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F.Supp. 1467 (S.D. Fla.1989) (municipal ordinances regulating ritual animal sacrifices held not violative of First Amendment on their face because they could apply to wide range of conduct other than conduct of religious groups challenging the ordinances); Town v. State ex rel. Reno, 377 So.2d 648 (Fla.1979) (State's compelling interest outweighs use of cannabis for religious purposes), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 803, 101 S.Ct. 48, 66 L.Ed.2d 7 (1980).
Accordingly, the trial court was in error in granting the Respondent's motion. The Writ of Certiorari is granted and the order under review is quashed.
BARKDULL, J., concurs.
. Section 501.203(1), Florida Statutes (1989), defines "consumer transactions" as:
[A] sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other disposition of an item of goods, a consumer service, or an intangible to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household or that relate to a business opportunity that requires both his expenditure of money or property and his personal services on a continuing basis and in which he has not been previously engaged, or a solicitation by a supplier with respect to any of these dispositions.