KENNETH A. PLANTE, DEMPSEY J. BARRON, PHILLIP D. LEWIS, JACK D. GORDON AND JON C. THOMAS, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS, 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 Florida Commission on Ethics lacks the authority to find probable cause of a breach of public trust by a Senator or to direct the filing of such a finding with the President of the Senate.
[1] The Florida Commission on Ethics has the authority to investigate complaints alleging violations of the Sunshine Amendment and to make public its findings, but it lacks t…
[2] The Senate is the sole judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns of its members and possesses the exclusive power to discipline or expel its members.
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 intelligenceSenators challenged an order from the Florida Commission on Ethics finding probable cause for breach of public trust due to alleged financial disclosu…
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 Breach Of Public Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
MELVIN, Judge.
Petitioners, Senators Kenneth A. Plante, Dempsey J. Barron, Phillip D. Lewis, Jack D. Gordon, and Jon C. Thomas (hereinafter the Senators), seek review of an order of the Florida Commission on Ethics dated October 21, 1977, which purported to find probable cause to establish breach of public trust in that the Senators had violated Article II, § 8(a) and (h) of the Florida Constitution and sought to refer such finding to the President of the Senate for official action.
Complaints were filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics alleging that the Senators had violated Article II, § 8(a) and (h), Florida Constitution by failing “ . . .to file full and public disclosure of financial interests as required by the Florida Constitution”. After investigations of the complaints were conducted by the Commission, a public hearing was held on October 21, 1977, where the Commission voted to take the aforementioned actions.
Article II, § 8(f), Florida Constitution establishes an independent commission with the duty “ . . . to conduct investigations and make public reports on all complaints concerning breach of public trust by public officers or employees not within the jurisdiction of the judicial qualifications commission”. The Florida Commission on Ethics is the statutory commission brought into existence by Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes. Article II, § 8(h), Florida Constitution provides that, until otherwise provided by law, the independent commission referred to in Article II, § 8(f), Florida Constitution shall mean the Florida Commission on Ethics. No legislation has been enacted which would purport to implement the provisions of Article II, § 8, Florida Constitution. • Petitioners and respondent agree that no provision of Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes is applicable to the issue before this court — namely, the authority of the Commission to do other than conduct an investigation and make a public report.
Article III, § 2, Florida Constitution provides that the Senate shall be the sole judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns of its members. The Senate has the power to punish or expel one of its members, Article III, § 4, Florida Constitution. Under Article III, § 5, Florida Constitution, the Senate is empowered to compel the production of documents relating to any matter under investigation by the Senate or any of its committees. Thus, the Senate has the sole power to determine if a Senator should be seated, unseated or otherwise disciplined.
The separation and independence of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government is well-established and is one of the basic principles upon which our system of government is founded. One branch of government does not have the authority to dilute or destroy the powers vested in another branch. Just as the executive or judicial branch has no authority to determine the qualifications of a Senator to be seated, the Florida Commission on Ethics has no power to make this determination, or to enter a finding of probable cause.
Article II, § 8, Florida Constitution in no way dilutes the power vested in the Senate to serve as the sole body with authority to pass judgment on the discipline or qualifications of one of its members.
It, therefore, follows that under Article II, § 8, Florida Constitution, generally known as the Sunshine Amendment, the Florida Commission on Ethics has the authority to conduct an investigation of complaints alleging a violation of Article II, § 8, Florida Constitution and to make public its report by distribution to all news media or by filing the same with the Secretary of State as it may choose. The Commission has no authority to find probable cause that a member of the House or Senate has violated the Constitution.
When the provisions of the Constitution, as adopted by the citizenry of Florida, are clear and unambiguous, they are to be read and enforced as written. Rights thereunder are protected by the judiciary, the branch that also serves as a protector of the right of free speech and free press when challenged, without regard to popularity of the issue or lack thereof.
That portion of the order of the Florida Commission on Ethics purporting to find probable cause of a violation by the petitioners of Article II, § 8(a) and (h), Florida Constitution and purporting to direct the filing of such finding as an official document with the President of the Senate transcends the constitutional grant of power to the Commission and as such it is void. The stay order heretofore entered is now adjudged to be permanent.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Soc'y OF Ophthalmology v. Fla. Optometric Ass'n, 489 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1986)…utional provision must begin with an examination of that provision’s explicit language. If that language is clear, unambiguous, and addresses the matter in issue, then it must be enforced as written. See, e.g. Plante v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 354 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The provision in question, however, does not explicitly address the situation before us in which a bill is presented to the governor after the legislature has adjourned sine die. We recognize the rule that constitutional la…
-
Fla. Comm'n ON Ethics v. Plante, 369 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1979)…d, whether the commission’s action infringes on article III, section 4(d), Florida Constitution. I We must first determine what the First District Court of Appeal held in its opinion of December 23,1977 (Plante v. The Florida Commission on Ethics, 354 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). We conclude that the opinion holds that the Commission on Ethics may not transmit a finding of probable cause to the President of the Senate in an attempt to commence a disciplinary action against a senator. Several portions of…1 / 3
-
Plante v. The Fla. Comm'n ON Ethics, 356 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…MELVIN, Judge. Upon consideration of the pleadings filed in this cause by the petitioners and respondent and oral argument of counsel, this Court on December 23, 1977, 354 So. 2d 87, rendered its opinion wherein it was considered, held and determined that, as to a member of the Legislature of Florida, the respondent was without authority to enter any judgment as to “probable cause” that failure on the part of such member to fil…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence