X hits on this document





21 / 27

otherwise. See In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor—Terms of County Court

Judges, 750 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1999). In addressing the operation of the

constitutional amendment which mandated conformity of interpretation of the

state's constitutional exclusion rule with the United States Supreme Court's

interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, this Court stated:

It is a well-established rule of construction that in the absence of clear legislative expression to the contrary, a law is presumed to operate prospectively.… This rule applies with particular force to those instances where retrospective operation of the law would impair or destroy existing rights. … In accordance with the rule applicable to original acts, it is presumed that provisions added by an amendment affecting existing rights are intended to operate prospectively also. … Nowhere in either article I, section 12 as amended or in the statement placed on the November ballot is there manifested any intent that the amendment be applied retroactively. Therefore, the amendment must be given prospective effect only.

State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1983) (emphasis added; cites


Applying these same principles, the Court ruled that the "Sunshine

Amendment," which prohibited members of the Legislature from representing

another person before any state agency during their term of office, should be

applied prospectively only. Myers v. Hawkins, 362 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1978). More

recently, the Court once again affirmed the prospective application rule in Terms of

County Court Judges, 750 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1999). See also Bogle v. Perkins, 240

So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1970) (property law amendment); State v. City of Delray Beach,


Document info
Document views39
Page views39
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 04:46:38 UTC 2016