D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410

In March 2009 a complaint to the City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel (CIP) led the Miami Police Department’s Internal Affairs to investigate and conclude the findings were inconclusive.
Nine days after Internal Affairs notified the complainant the CIP issued a subpoena requiring Lt. Freddy D’Agastino to appear before the CIP.
D’Agastino (and the Fraternal Order of Police) sued to quash the subpoena, arguing the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights (PBR), §§ 112.531–.535, Fla. Stat., preempts municipal bodies from compelling officers to testify in investigations that could lead to discipline.
The trial court upheld the CIP; the Third District affirmed (2–1). The Fifth District’s decision in Demings conflicted, prompting Supreme Court review on preemption grounds.
The City of Miami charter and ordinances grant the CIP subpoena power, require coordination with Internal Affairs, and provide that CIP can make recommendations but not impose discipline.
The Florida Supreme Court held the PBR preempts political subdivisions’ power to compel officers to testify (via subpoena) in investigations that could lead to discipline, and quashed the CIP subpoena as applied to officers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PBR expressly preempts municipal subpoenas compelling officers to testify in investigations that could lead to discipline	D’Agastino: §112.533(1)’s language makes the employing agency exclusively responsible for investigating complaints; language "notwithstanding any ... ordinance to the contrary" is express preemption	City/CIP: PBR regulates internal agency investigations only; CIP is external, makes only recommendations, and does not impose discipline	No express preemption found—statute lacks the clear, specific language required for express preemption
Whether the PBR implicitly (field) preempts municipal subpoena power to compel officer testimony in discipline-related investigations	D’Agastino: legislative scheme and amendments show intent to funnel discipline-related investigations to employing agencies; allowing CIP subpoenas would undermine PBR protections	City/CIP: CIP does not exercise managerial/disciplinary authority; subpoenas are part of independent civilian oversight and do not conflict with PBR	Yes—court found implied preemption limited to discipline-related investigations: political subdivisions cannot compel officers to testify by subpoena in matters that could lead to discipline; CIP may still review completed internal-investigation records and perform non-compulsory oversight

D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 189 So.3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (decision below affirming CIP subpoena power)
Demings v. Orange County Citizens Review Bd., 15 So.3d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (held PBR preempted local review board subpoena power)
City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 114 So.3d 924 (Fla. 2013) (discusses limits of municipal home rule vs. legislative preemption)
Miami-Dade County v. Dade County Police Benevolent Ass’n, 154 So.3d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (interpreted PBR preemption field as limited to discipline-related investigations)
City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2006) (standards for express vs. implied preemption under home rule)