R. H. NOEL, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG; E. E. LIPHARD, AS CAPTAIN OF DETECTIVES FOR THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG; CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, A. F. THOMASSON, AS CITY MANAGER, AND GLEN V. LELAND, AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OF SAID CITY,
v.
STATE, EX REL. JOHN S. SIERS
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.
This case addresses whether police officials could demote a detective under Florida's 1931 Civil Service Law without providing notice, explanation, or a hearing. The Florida Supreme Court held that due process protections under the civil service law required such procedural safeguards and affirmed the issuance of a writ of mandamus to restore the officer.
No. The court held that the Civil Service Law required procedural protections including service of notice specifying the reason for demotion, an opportunity for the officer to file an explanation, and a hearing on the charges before any demotion could be effected.
“Could the captain of detectives, with the approval of the chief of police, after said Act became effective, legally demote said police officer to the rank and grade of a first-class patrolman and reduce his pay $10.00 per month, without serving him a copy of a notice specifying the reason for his demotion, or without giving him an opportunity to make and file an explanation as to the supposed ground for demotion, or without giving him an opportunity to be heard as to the charge against him?”
Statement of the controlling legal question on appeal, answered in the negative by the trial court and affirmed on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn S. Siers held the rank and grade of detective in St. Petersburg's Police Department when the St. Petersburg Civil Service Law (Chapter 15515, Act…
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.
— This is an appeal from an order for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the restoration of the relator to the Detective Division of the Police Department of the City of St. Petersburg and the restoration of his pay as such detective. This order was made after final hearing on pleadings and evidence.
There is very little controversy as to the éssential facts. The relator held the rank and grade and drew the salary of a detective in the police department of the respondent City at the time of the passage and approval, and ratification by vote of the qualified electors of said city, of Chapter 15515 of the Acts of 1931 (Vol. 2, Special Acts of 1931, p. 1731), known as the St. Petersburg Civil Service Law. The controlling question on this appeal, as raised by the pleadings and proof and the order of the trial court, is: Could the captain of detectives, with the approval of the chief of police, after said Act became effective, legally demote said police officer to the rank and grade of a first-class patrolman and reduce his pay $10.00 per month, without serving him a copy of a notice specifying the reason for his demotion, or without giving him an opportunity *346to make and file an explanation as to the supposed ground for demotion, or without giving him an opportunity to be heard as to the charge against him? This question was answered in the negative by the Circuit Judge.
The question is also raised as to whether mandamus was available as a remedy under the facts of this case. The lower court held that it was.
Construing the pertinent provisions of said Chapter' 15515 as applied to the facts of this case, our conclusion is that the order of the Circuit Court should be sustained upon
the authority of the holdings in the following cases: State, ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, et al., 103 Fla. 801, 138 So. 372; Bryan v. Landis, Atty. Gen’l., ex rel. Reeve, 106
Fla. 19, 142 So. 650; Roark, et al., v. State, ex rel. Waters, 107 Fla. 659, 145 So. 867; State, ex rel. Williams, v. Whit-
man, et al., 116 Fla. 196, 150 So. 136, 156 So. 705; Roark v. State, ex rel. McDaniel, 122 Fla. 843, 165 So. 901; State, ex rel. Allen, v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544, 167 So. 21.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
(concurring). — The record in this case shows that the responsible officials of the City reduced Siers, defendant in error, from the grade of detective sergeant to the ultimate position of “dog catcher’’ in the department of safety. It requires little judicial imagination to perceive in such course of action a scheme to so humiliate the reduced officer as to amount to his practical discharge without cause in violation of the intent of the Civil Service provisions of the St. Petersburg Charter. I agree that this officer’s reinstatement should be affirmed.
Davis, J.
(concurring). — The record in this case shows that the responsible officials of the City reduced Siers, defendant in error, from the grade of detective sergeant to the ultimate position of “dog catcher’’ in the department of safety. It requires little judicial imagination to perceive in such course of action a scheme to so humiliate the reduced officer as to amount to his practical discharge without cause in violation of the intent of the Civil Service provisions of the St. Petersburg Charter. I agree that this officer’s reinstatement should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsey West v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 373 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…held that a writ of mandamus will issue to compel the reinstatement with back pay of an improperly discharged or demoted governmental employee. E. g., Arnold v. State ex rel. Mallison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So. 2d 874 (1941); Noel v. State ex rel. Siers, 125 Fla. 344, 170 So. 114 (1936); Roark v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 122 Fla. 843, 164 So. 901 (1936); Roark v. State ex rel. Waters, 107 Fla. 659, 145 So. 867 (1933); see State ex rel. Hawkins v. McCall, 158 Fla. 655, 29 So. 2d 739 (1947).4 The federal cases like…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Alton B. Whitman, 116 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1934)
- Hardy Bryan v. Cary D. Landis, 106 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1932)
- State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Hollingsworth, 103 Fla. 801 (Fla. 1931)
- Partin v. Citizens State Bank of St. Cloud, 112 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1933)
- Roark v. State, 107 Fla. 659 (Fla. 1933)
- Roark v. State, 122 Fla. 843 (Fla. 1936)