Roberts v. Austin
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
632 F.2d 1202 (1980)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Edward Austin, a state prosecuting attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit (defendant), requested from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) (defendant) the records of all food-stamp recipients residing in various counties in Florida who received at least $125 per month in food stamps. Although the request was part of an overall fraud investigation, Austin had no basis for believing that any of the individuals who were the subjects of the records had committed fraud. HRS provided the records to Austin. After that, Austin compiled information sheets for each household, which Austin then distributed to local police, who were instructed to conduct investigations to verify the households’ application information. Low-income food-stamp recipients who resided in the affected Florida counties (the recipients) (plaintiffs) sued Austin and HRS, claiming a violation of the recipients’ statutory rights as well as constitutional rights to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and due process. The recipients sought damages and injunctive relief to prevent Austin from demanding and HRS from providing records in the absence of a suspicion of fraud. The district court denied relief, finding that Austin was entitled to the records from HRS as an official “directly connected” with the enforcement of the food-stamp program even if no fraud was suspected. The district court also concluded that the recipients did not have a protected right to privacy in the records. The recipients appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hatchett, J.)
Concurrence (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.