Case Name: Gordon A. SMITH, Appellant, v. Peter A. PORTANTE, Jr., Thomas J. Lummus and E. B. Leatherman, Ex Officio, as members of the Dade County Jury Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-07-02
Citations: 212 So. 2d 298
Docket Number: No. 36774
Parties: Gordon A. SMITH, Appellant, v. Peter A. PORTANTE, Jr., Thomas J. Lummus and E. B. Leatherman, Ex Officio, as members of the Dade County Jury Commission, Appellees.
Judges: CALDWELL, C. J., THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 212
Pages: 298–301

Head Matter:
Gordon A. SMITH, Appellant, v. Peter A. PORTANTE, Jr., Thomas J. Lummus and E. B. Leatherman, Ex Officio, as members of the Dade County Jury Commission, Appellees.
No. 36774.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 2, 1968.
Shutts & Bowen, Herbert L. Nadeau and Karl Vance Hart, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., T. T. Turn-bull and Stephen Marc Slepin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees.

Opinion:
ERVIN, Justice.
This is an appeal from a declaratory decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, upholding the constitutionality of Section 40.101, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S. A., which reads as follows :
"(1) In order to gather essential information concerning prospective jurors in advance of the actual impaneling of grand or petit juries, jury commissioners, or county commissioners in those counties not having jury commissioners, are authorized and directed to require the return of mailed questionnaires and to provide self-addressed and ready-stamped envelopes for the purpose. The judicial council of Florida shall devise and promulgate an appropriate questionnaire to be used as provided herein.
"(2) All information gathered by the mailed questionnaires authorized in subsection (1) shall be treated as confidential; provided that questionnaires returned by the persons whose names finally appear on the jury list may be made available to the court and to counsel for use during the voir dire examination."
In the case of Barrow v. Holland (Fla.1960), 125 So.2d 749, 752, we held:
" it is a well-established rule of constitutional law that an enactment delegating administrative power to an agency of government should define the limits of the power by including in the enactment reasonable standards which enable the affected public to meet the requirements of the enactment. These standards at the same time preclude the exercise of arbitrary power by the enforcement agencies of the government."
In the instant case the "essential information" to be gathered from prospective jurors is not indicated in the language of the Act. The Act does not suggest the nature of the questions to be propounded to the prospective jurors. It provides no objective guidelines or standards for the Judicial Council to follow in formulating and promulgating an appropriate questionnaire. Consequently, the Act on its face represents an unlawful delegation of authority to the Judicial Council and to jury commissioners to propound any question they see fit to prospective jurors.
It well may be that the Act has a laudable object and purpose. Its sponsors, who originated the idea of propounding questions to prospective jurors and promoted its passage by the Legislature, no doubt were sincerely motivated and desired thereby to serve the public good. Unfortunately, however, the general nature of the questions to be propounded is not spelled out in the Act. No matter how laudable a piece of legislation may be in the minds of its sponsors, objective guidelines and standards should appear expressly in the act or be within the realm of reasonable inference from the language of the act where a delegation of power is involved and especially so where the legislation contemplates a delegation of power to intrude into the privacy of citizens.
Conceivably, such an uncircumscribed questionnaire as here contemplated could cover the widest range of inquiries unconnected with traditional voir dire questioning or statutory requisites relating to qualifications of jurors, e. g., such questions might inquire into the prospective juror's political, religious, social and economic views, his marital status, his arrest or conviction record, his financial condition, his educational background, his addiction to alcohol or narcotics, his views on race relations, his views on allowance of damages in certain cases, or his general conduct and habits. Many of such questions could be unnecessarily embarrassing to the citizen who, according to the record here, is admonished on the proposed questionnaire that "You are required by law to promptly answer" and that if he does not he will be guilty of contempt.
For the reasons stated, we hold that Section 40.101, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A., is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the decree is reversed.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
ADAMS, J., dissents with Opinion.
DREW, J., dissents and concurs with ADAMS, J.