WALTER E. HEADLEY, A. M. FONTANA, D. F. MARCH, AND M. E. GRACY, AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MIAMI POLICE RELIEF AND PENSION FUND, APPELLANTS,
v.
W. H. SHARPE, HENRY HAUSER, EDWARD NISKE AND PEGGY HJORT, 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.
The Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund's Board of Trustees appealed a declaratory judgment finding that desk sergeants, booking officers, prison guards, and matrons employed by the City of Miami qualify as police officers under Florida law and are entitled to pension fund benefits. The court affirmed, holding that these jail custody and supervision positions constitute police functions within the statutory definition.
These jail custody and supervision positions constitute police functions within the statutory definition of police officer. The court held that keeping and custody of prisoners in a jail is an inherent and naked police function that keeps public peace, conserves life and property, and is vital to public welfare, making the appellees entitled to pension fund benefits.
“Certainly the actual keeping and custody of prisoners confined in a jail, is the performance of an inherent and naked police function.”
Establishes the core legal principle that jail custody is a recognized police function
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees held positions as desk sergeant, booking officer, prison guard, and matron with the City of Miami. They were charged with enforcing city…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, defendants below, seek review of a declaratory decree, holding that the appellees, who hold the positions of desk sergeant, booking officer, prison guard and' matron with the City of Miami, are within: the intentions of Ch. 185, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.,. and are entitled to the benefits provided by the City of Miami Ordinance 6558, governing the Miami Police Relief and Pension* Fund. Said benefits were denied the ap-pellees by the Board of Trustees of the-Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund and, subsequent to a hearing on the merits, the-chancellor found for the appellees.
We deem the question presented to be-whether there was substantial evidence presented to support the findings of the chancellor. It is clearly shown in the record' on appeal that the appellees are charged'. *537■with the enforcement of the ordinances of the City of Miami and the Statutes of the State of Florida. They are issued badges identifying their authority, guns and they have power of arrest. The record also shows the appellees are subject to the rules and regulations of the Official Police Manual of the City of Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Section 185.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., defines a police officer as: “ ‘Police officer’ means full-time police officers who receive compensation from municipal funds of any incorporated municipality of the state for services rendered.” § 186.03(34), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., defines police officer as: “ * * * every officer of the municipal police department or any such officer authorised to direct or regulate traffic or to make arrests.” .[Emphasis added.]
The duties of the appellees, in this instance, are primarily the supervision of the ■city jail and the supervision of the prisoners and their activities during the terms of their confinements. There is no question that these services rendered by the appellees can be classified a police function in that they keep the public peace; that they conserve both life and property, and that their activities are vital to public welfare of this State, pursuant to § 185.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Certainly the actual keeping and custody of prisoners confined in a jail, is the performance of an inherent and naked police function. State ex rel. Priest v. Gunn, Mo.1959, 326 S.W.2d 314.
After carefully reviewing the record, we ■conclude there is substantial evidence to ■support the findings of the chancellor holding that desk sergeants, booking officers, prison guards and matrons are policemen within the intentions of Ch. 185, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and are entitled to benefits under the Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund. We therefore affirm the decree of the lower •court.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Headley v. Sharpe, 146 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1962)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 138 So. 2d 536.…
-
City OF Miami v. Rumpf, 235 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…red in holding that the plaintiffs, within the Corrections Division, were entitled to the same pay as police officers and others within the Enforcement Division. The appellees rely heavily on this court’s opinion in Headley v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 536, to sustain the trial judge’s ruling. We do not find Headley v. Sharpe, supra, to be controlling herein. In the cited case, the question was simply whether cer [*343] tain personnel of the City of Miami met the statutory definition in Ch. 185, Fla.S…
-
City OF Miami & Miami City Emps. Ret. Sys. & Plan v. Musial, 291 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…Chapter 185, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The court concluded that the appellees had proven the allegations of their complaint and awarded the relief requested. The trial judge relied upon this court’s holding in Headley v. Sharpe, Fla.App. [*80] 1962, 138 So. 2d 536, wherein this court held that employees in the City of Miami Jail met the statutory definition of police officers as defined by Fla.Stat. § 185.02 (1), F.S.A. This chapter governs the Municipal Police Officers Retirement Trust Fund. In City of Miam…