RUSSELL WATERS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
E. WISLON PURDY ET AL., DEFENDANTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal addressed whether a law enforcement agency must convene a complaint review board upon demand by an officer who has already exhausted civil service appeals after termination. The court held that Section 112.532(2) applies only to officers under investigation, not those already terminated, and therefore the agency had no duty to convene such a board.
Section 112.532(2) does not apply to officers already terminated after civil service procedures have been exhausted. The statute applies only to officers under investigation and subject to interrogation for matters that could lead to disciplinary action, and therefore Waters was not entitled to mandamus relief.
[1] A law enforcement officer is not entitled to a complaint review board under Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1975), if the officer was not under investigation at the…
[2] Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1975), concerning complaint review boards for law enforcement officers, must be read in pari materia with Section 112.532(1), Florid…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“(1) Rights of law enforcement officers while under investigation. — Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his agency for any reason which could lead to disciplinary,, action, demotion, or dismissal, such interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions . . .”
Establishes the court's interpretive method linking the complaint review board statute to the requirement that the officer be under investigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell Waters, a Dade County Public Safety Department officer, was terminated by Sheriff Purdy on March 7, 1975. A hearing examiner was appointed and…
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 Disciplinary Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The following certified question has been presented for our determination:
DOES SECTION 112.532(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1975), REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO CONVENE A COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD UPON THE DEMAND OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION, WHEN THE OFFICER HAS AVAILED HIMSELF OF THE CIVIL SERVICE APPEALS PROCEDURE, TO REVIEW SAID DISCIPLINARY ACTION; AND IF SO, WHAT, IF ANY, ADJUDICATORY POWERS WOULD SUCH A COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD POSSESS?
The salient facts are as follows:
On March 7, 1975 Russell Waters, a Dade County Public Safety Department law en forcement officer, was notified of his termination by Sheriff Purdy. On March 10, pursuant to Waters’ request, a hearing examiner was appointed in accordance with Section 2-47, Code of Metropolitan Dade County, to review the termination action, and on April 23 the examiner held a hearing at which Waters personally appeared. Thereafter, the hearing examiner submitted his findings of fact and recommendation that Waters be terminated to the county manager. On August 12 the county manager notified Waters of his confirmation of Waters’ dismissal. In January 1976 Waters demanded the convening of a complaint review board pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1975):
“112.532 Law Enforcement officers’ rights
“All law enforcement officers employed by an employing agency shall have the following rights and privileges:
**
“(2) Complaint review boards.- — A complaint review board shall be composed of three (3) members: one (1) member selected by the chief administrator of the agency; one (1) member selected by the aggrieved officer; and a third member to be selected by the other two (2) members. Agencies having more than one hundred (100) law enforcement officers shall utilize a five (5) member board with two (2) members being selected by the administrator, two (2) members being selected by the aggrieved officer, and a fifth member being selected by the other four (4) members. The board members shall be law enforcement officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county.”
The County refused to comply with Waters’ demand on the ground that the establishment of such a board is discretionary. Thereupon, Waters filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Dade County and its sheriff, E. Wilson Purdy, wherein he sought to compel respondents to convene a complaint review board. Thereafter the trial judge certified the above question.
After scrutinizing Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1975) in its entirety, we find that subsection (2) set out above must be read in pari materia with subsection (1) which provides in part:
“112.532 Law Enforcement officers’ rights
**
“(1) Rights of law enforcement officers while under investigation. — Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his agency for any reason which could lead to disciplinary,, action, demotion, or dismissal, such interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions . . . ” [Emphasis Supplied]
The record presented to this court demonstrates that Russell Waters was not under investigation, but rather was terminated for violation of the public safety department’s personnel rules which he admitted violating. We, therefore, answer the certified question in the negative as Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1975) is not applicable to the instant situation; and, accordingly, we find Waters is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The cause is remanded to the trial court to dismiss the petition.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mesa v. Rodriguez, 357 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1978)…ved officer, and a fifth member being selected by the other four members. The board members shall be law enforcement officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county. . See lnglima, note 3, above, and Waters v. Purdy, 345 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Bembanaste v. City OF Hollywood, 394 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ot disclose that appellant ever sought timely enforcement of those rights pursuant to Section 112.534, Florida Statutes (1977).1 Cf. West v. State, Depart [*1054] ment of Criminal Law Enforcement, 371 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Waters v. Purdy, 345 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the complaint does not allege that appellant’s termination resulted from an attempt to exercise any of the rights set forth in Section 112.532(1) et seq. See Section 112.532(5).2 Therefore, we do not reach the issue of…