## Facts

- Florida enacted § 732.9185, Fla. Stat. (1983), authorizing district medical examiners (or qualified designees) to remove corneal tissue during statutorily required autopsies for transplantation upon request by an authorized eye bank.
- The statute conditioned removal on: (1) medical examiner jurisdiction, (2) a mandatory autopsy, (3) no interference with the death investigation, and (4) a current request from an authorized eye bank.
- The statute barred removal if the next of kin objected, but did not require notifying the next of kin before removal.
- James White and Anthony Powell died in separate accidents; their deaths fell within medical examiner jurisdiction and required autopsies.
- During the autopsies, medical examiners removed the decedents’ corneas under § 732.9185 without notifying family members and without any known prior objection by next of kin.
- The decedents’ parents sued, alleging wrongful removal and challenging the statute’s constitutionality.
- A circuit court declared § 732.9185 unconstitutional; the Florida Supreme Court accepted review on a certified question of great public importance.

## Issues

1. Whether § 732.9185 violates procedural or substantive due process by authorizing corneal removal during mandatory autopsies without notice to, or consent from, next of kin (absent a known objection).
2. Whether § 732.9185 violates equal protection by treating decedents subject to mandatory autopsy differently from other decedents.
3. Whether corneal removal under § 732.9185 constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property, based on an asserted next-of-kin property interest in a decedent’s body.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s ruling and upheld § 732.9185 as constitutional.
- The Court held the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in increasing corneal tissue availability for transplantation and restoring sight.
- The Court rejected the takings claim, concluding next of kin do not hold a compensable property interest in a decedent’s body beyond a limited interest for burial purposes.
- The Court found no due process violation because no fundamental right or protected property interest required notice or consent under the statute’s framework.
- The Court found no equal protection violation because the statute’s classification (mandatory-autopsy cases) had a rational basis tied to medical examiner jurisdiction and the transplantation objective.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida law, next of kin have only a limited quasi-property interest in a decedent’s body for burial purposes, not a broad property right in organs or tissue.
- When no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated, constitutional challenges to postmortem tissue-removal statutes are evaluated under rational basis review.
- A corneal-removal statute limited to mandatory autopsies, conditioned on noninterference with investigations, and prohibited upon next-of-kin objection may be constitutional even without a notice requirement.
- The state’s public welfare interest in facilitating corneal transplantation can justify a statutory scheme that permits corneal procurement in the medical examiner context.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court upheld § 732.9185, ruling that authorizing corneal removal during mandatory autopsies without notifying next of kin does not violate due process, equal protection, or takings principles because the statute rationally serves a legitimate public purpose and next of kin lack a compensable property interest beyond burial.


State v. Powell, 497 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1986)