Opinion ID: 76998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DNA Statute

Text: 46 Appellants next make a terse argument that Florida's DNA Statute violates the federal and state constitutional doctrines of due process and separation of powers. 10 For the reasons that follow, we disagree.
47 First, Appellants ask us to enforce FLA. STAT. § 120.54(1)(b), which requires administrative regulations be in place within 180 days of the enactment of a statute requiring such rules. While the issue of whether such rules are not in place is in serious doubt, see FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 11D-6.001, 6.003, the implementation of nuanced state administrative laws does not by itself raise a liberty interest for constitutional due process review. See Tony L. v. Childers, 71 F.3d 1182, 1185 (6th Cir.1995). State-created procedural rights that do not guarantee a particular substantive outcome are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, even where such procedural rights are mandatory. Id. Section 120.54(1)(b) merely gives direction and procedural deadlines to state agencies; it does not grant substantive rights to the Appellants.
48 Second, Appellants assert a separation of powers claim under the Florida constitution because the DNA Statute divested them of their right to challenge the collection and use of a DNA sample. As we stated previously in regard to the Sex Offender Act, however, we will not interpret state law against state officials when such review directly impacts the state. See Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 117, 104 S.Ct. at 917. Thus, Appellants' final argument fails.