CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JACQUELYN RENEE TOWN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Miami Beach sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring a police sergeant to answer deposition questions about undercover infiltration of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church. The court granted certiorari in part, protecting questions regarding ongoing undercover operations from disclosure on public policy grounds while denying certiorari as to other discovery questions.
The court granted certiorari as to the question regarding the identity of undercover agents and ongoing police operations, holding that such information is protected from disclosure absent a clear showing of necessity. The court denied certiorari as to other discovery questions, finding they would effect no substantial injury to the city.
[1] A writ of common law certiorari is appropriate to review an order overruling objections and requiring answers to deposition questions concerning an ongoing police investi…
[2] A strong public policy favors the confidentiality of information related to ongoing police investigations.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is obvious that this question concerns an allegedly on-going police investigation, and that any answer may serve not only to compromise the investigation, but also to cause actual physical danger to those involved. Our courts have rightly recognized and enforced a strong public policy in favor of the confidentiality of such information.”
Establishes the court's rationale for protecting undercover police information from discovery based on public policy and safety concerns.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacquelyn Town sued the City of Miami Beach alleging unlawful infiltration of undercover police agents onto premises where the Ethiopian Zion Coptic C…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The petitioner City of Miami Beach is the defendant below in a cause brought by the present respondent, Jacquelyn Town. The complaint sought to restrain the city from violating Town’s constitutional rights through what she alleges is the unlawful practice of infiltrating undercover agents onto her premises where the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church apparently conducts its affairs.1 In this proceeding, the city seeks review, by petition for writ of common law certiorari, of an order overruling its objections and requiring answers to several questions asked by the plaintiff of a Miami Beach police sergeant at his deposition.
We conclude that certiorari must be granted as to the following question:
“Q. Is there anyone in there at the present time that is there at your behest, that is, the Miami Beach Police behest, such as Pemberton?” 2 [e. s.]
It is obvious that this question concerns an allegedly ongoing police investigation, and that any answer may serve not only to compromise the investigation, but also to cause actual physical danger to those involved. Our courts have rightly recognized and enforced a strong public policy in favor of the confidentiality of such information.3 See Lee v. Beach Publishing Co., 127 Fla. 600, 173 So. 440 (1937); Rose v. D’Alessandro, 364 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); City of Tampa v. Harold, 352 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Getter v. Yanks, 290 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Widener v. Croft, 184 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1966). In the absence of a clear showing of necessity, which the respondent did not make below, see City of Tampa v. Harold, supra, the vindication of this policy requires the quashal of that portion of the order under review which required that this question be answered.
As to the other questions considered in the order below, the petition is denied. Again without passing on the merits of the issues involved,4 we conclude that compliance with those portions of the order would effect no substantial injury on the city. We therefore decline to invoke our discretionary authority to review them on petition for certiorari. See Suez Co. v. Hodgins, 137 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Certiorari granted in part, denied in part.
. We express no opinion as to the validity of this claim, since the action of the trial judge in denying the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint is not before us.
. Pemberton was a person who had allegedly been retained in the past by Miami Beach, but who had been discovered (and converted) by the Coptics.
. Since no documents were ordered produced, neither the Public Records Act, Chap. 119, Fla. Stat. (1978), nor the recent amendment to the act effected by Chapter 79-187, Fla. Laws (1979) is directly pertinent at this stage of the proceedings.
. See note 1, supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…y erroneous discovery order creates certiorari jurisdiction in an appellate court. Some orders entered in connection with discovery proceedings are subject to adequate redress by plenary appeal from a final judgment. See City of Miami Beach v. Town, 375 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We recognize that discovery of certain types of information may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature. Illustrative is “cat out of the bag” material that could be used by an unscrupulous litigant to injure an…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Lee v. Beach Publ'g Co., 127 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1937)
- Widener v. Croft, 184 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Suez Co. v. Lilla D. Hodgins, 137 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Busbee v. State, 192 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1966)
- In re Est. of Samuel Donner v. Anton, 364 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Douglas v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 192 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1966)
- Getter v. Yanks, 290 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Iran J. Gonzalez v. State, 352 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- City OF Tampa v. Harold, 352 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)