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 District Court of Appeal held that the Ethics Commission violated its prior judgment by finding that legislative members breached public trust through failure to file financial disclosures, when the Commission lacked even the authority to determine probable cause on this matter. The Court found the Commission's subsequent findings void but declined to hold them in contempt, recognizing they acted on inadequate legal advice in good faith.
The Commission lacked authority to find that failure to file financial disclosures constituted breach of public trust, as such authority rests solely with the Senate under Article III, Sections 2 and 4 of the Florida Constitution. The Commission's February 15, 1978 order finding breach of public trust is void and without force. The Commission is not in contempt, as they acted upon inadequate legal advice in good faith.
[1] The Florida Senate is the sole judge of the qualifications and elections of its members and possesses the exclusive power to punish or expel any of its members.
[2] The Florida Senate has the sole authority to adjudge that a Senator has committed an act constituting a breach of public trust for which they should be disciplined or rem…
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“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 file financial disclosure statements constituted a breach of public trust”
Establishes the Commission's lack of jurisdiction over legislative members' disclosure failures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners, members of the Florida Legislature, failed to file financial disclosure statements. The Florida Commission on Ethics filed a report and l…
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.
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 file financial disclosure statements constituted a breach of public trust. The authority of the respondent to conduct investigations, file its report and to disseminate the same was ruled upon. The Court' ruled that under Article III, Sections 2 and 4, Florida Constitution, the Senate is the sole judge of the qualifications and elections of its members and has the sole power to punish or to expel any one of its members. It follows, therefore, that the Senate has the sole power to adjudge that a Senator has committed any act, the effect of which would constitute a breach of the public trust and for which he should be unseated or otherwise disciplined.
It appears from the pleadings filed before this Court that the respondent Commission, on February 15, 1978, entered its formal order, paragraph 2(c) thereof, ruling that petitioners “by failing to file such disclosure, the above-named parties have breached the public trust.”
It is blatantly apparent that a body, such as the Commission, found without even the authority to find “probable cause” that an offense has been committed may not subsequently find such person “guilty” of a breach of the public trust by reason of failure to make such filing.
Paragraph 2(c) of the final order and public report of said Commission of date February 15, 1978, being in plain conflict with the order and opinion of this Court, is void and without any force and effect.
With reference to the petition to find the respondents in contempt of this Court, we find that they are not in contempt of court. Upon a reading of the transcript of the proceedings conducted by such respondents, it is clear that they acted upon inadequate legal advice and there is nothing before this Court to indicate that either commissioner did not act in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Comm'n ON Ethics v. Plante, 369 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1979)…ADKINS, Justice, dissenting. I dissent on the ground that we have no jurisdiction. The majority holds that the decision of the district court of appeal, Plante v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 356 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (referred to as Plante II), construes a provision of the state constitution. Art. V, § 3(b)(1). We should exercise greater restraint in the exercise of our jurisdiction. The district court of appeal in Plante v. Florida Commissi…1 / 4
Authorities Cited
- Plante v. The Fla. Comm'n ON Ethics, 354 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)