KARL WILKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH, GEORGE BRESCHER, AND VERNE C. THORNTON, JR., APPELLEES
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.
A deputy sheriff challenged his termination by an undersheriff designated by the Broward County Sheriff. The court affirmed the termination, holding that sheriffs have absolute control over the selection and retention of deputies, who hold office by appointment rather than employment and thus have no property interest or due process protections in their positions.
A deputy sheriff has no property interest in his office and no constitutional due process protections when dismissed. The sheriff has absolute control over the selection and retention of deputies and may modify or revoke disciplinary procedures at will; such procedures do not create contractual rights that restrict the sheriff's termination authority.
[1] A deputy sheriff holds office by appointment and is an officer, not an employee.
[2] A sheriff has absolute control over the selection and retention of deputies.
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“A sheriff is authorized to appoint deputies for whose acts he is responsible, to act in his stead. Section 30.07, Florida Statutes (1981). A deputy sheriff holds office by appointment, rather than by employment, and is thus an officer, rather than an employee.”
Establishes the foundational distinction between deputy sheriffs as appointed officers rather than employees, which determines their legal protections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarl Wilkerson, a deputy sheriff, was terminated by an undersheriff who had been designated by the Sheriff of Broward County and authorized to act in …
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a deputy sheriff from his termination by another deputy sheriff, who had been designated as both “Colonel” and “Undersheriff” by the Sheriff of Broward County. The Sheriffs un-controverted affidavit recited that the Un-dersheriff had the authority to terminate appellant and was authorized by the sheriff to act in his name, place and stead in all matters. The trial court could properly find that this uncontroverted recitation of fact controlled, notwithstanding disciplinary procedures which recited that except for oral reprimand and emergency suspension, all discipline was subject to the sheriffs approval.
We approve of Szell v. Lamar, 414 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), which provided:
A sheriff is authorized to appoint deputies for whose acts he is responsible, to act in his stead. Section 30.07, Florida Statutes (1981). A deputy sheriff holds office by appointment, rather than by employment, and is thus an officer, rather than an employee. Murphy v. Mack, 358 So. 2d 822 (Fla.1978). The sheriff has absolute control over the selection and retention of deputies in order that law enforcement be centralized in the county, and in order that the people be able to place responsibility upon a particular officer for failure of law enforcement. Section 30.53, Florida Statutes (1981); Tanner v. McCall, 625 F. 2d 1183 (5th Cir.1980); Blackburn v. Brorein, 70 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1954); Murphy, 358 So. 2d at 825. Thus, a deputy sheriff has no property interest in his office and no constitutional due process protections when he is dismissed. Evans v. Hardcastle, 339 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Neither does he acquire a contract right by virtue of a disciplinary procedure unilaterally adopted by the sheriff, which the sheriff may similarly modify or completely revoke at will.
Id. at 277-278.
Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957), involved a public employee, not an appointee.
Affirmed.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller Crews, Sr. v. Ellis, 531 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…l over the selection and retention of deputies, a deputy sheriff has no property interest in his office and no constitutional due process protections when he is dismissed. See Blackburn v. Brorein, 70 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1954); Wilkerson v. Butterworth, 492 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Evans v. Hardcastle, 339 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). However, the trial court also cited the case of Szell v. Lamar, 414 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In Szell, a deputy sheriff argued, based on a general order promulgate…
-
McRAE v. Douglas, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ate, is four years. See Brooks v. Elliott, 593 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). . Internal personnel policy provisions promulgated by the sheriff do not give a deputy a property interest. Szell, 414 So. 2d at 278. See also Wilkerson v. Butterworth, 492 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). . McRae claims that since an "employing agency” includes the state or "any political subdivision thereof,” and a sheriff has been held to be an agency of a political subdivision, Beard v. Hambrick, 396 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1981) (fo…
-
The Great Global Assurance Co. & Insbrook, Inc. v. Shoemaker, 599 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…lant relies on Parker v. Hill, 72 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1954), wherein the supreme court noted that deputy sheriffs are employees of the county rather than the Sheriff’s Office. See also Murphy v. Mack, 358 So. 2d 822 (Fla.1978); Wilkerson v. Butterworth, 492 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). However, even though the Parker court noted that deputy sheriffs were not employees, it held that they did come under the purview of the Workers’ Compensation Act as officers elected at the polls. The deputy argues that since h…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1957)
- Tanner v. McCALL, 625 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Blackburn v. Brorein, 70 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1954)
- Murphy v. Mack, 358 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1978)
- Charley F. Ison v. Rollin W. Zimmerman, 372 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1979)
- Evans v. Hardcastle, 339 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Szell v. Lawson L. Lamar, 414 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Finan v. Dep't OF Transp., 414 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)