189 So. 3d 236
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Civilian complaint alleged misconduct by City of Miami Police Lt. Freddy D’Agastino after a traffic stop; Internal Affairs found the complaint inconclusive.
- The City of Miami had created a Civilian Investigative Panel (CIP) by charter and ordinance to provide independent civilian oversight and to investigate citizen complaints, including subpoena power.
- D’Agastino sought to quash a CIP subpoena, arguing Florida’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (Chapter 112, §§112.532–533) gives the employing agency the exclusive procedure to investigate officer misconduct.
- The City and CIP contended Chapter 112 governs internal disciplinary investigations but does not preclude an independent external review body that can investigate and recommend non‑binding outcomes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City and CIP; the Third District affirmed, distinguishing Timoney and rejecting the Fifth District’s Demings holding that Chapter 112 preempts citizen review boards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §112.533(1) gives employing agencies exclusive authority to investigate police misconduct | §112.533 makes the employing agency’s system “the procedure” for investigating complaints, preempting local boards | Chapter 112 governs internal discipline/interrogation rights only; it does not prohibit independent external civilian investigations that only make recommendations | The statute does not preempt or conflict with the CIP; the CIP can conduct independent investigations and subpoena witnesses, subject to limits (no discipline authority) |
| Whether CIP investigations conflict with officer rights under §112.532 | CIP subpoenas and investigations allow evidence gathering without statutory Bill of Rights protections, thus conflicting | CIP has no management or disciplinary power, must avoid interfering with criminal investigations, and its findings are advisory; ordinance requires compliance with Chapters 112/119 | No irreconcilable conflict; CIP and Chapter 112 can co-exist because CIP lacks authority to discipline and must avoid interfering with statutory processes |
| Whether the City ordinance is preempted as creating an exception to Chapter 112 | The 2003/2007 amendments and the 2007 forwarding requirement show the Legislature intended the employing agency to be the sole local investigator | The statute’s scope addresses internal disciplinary procedure and does not bar external civilian oversight | Majority: ordinance not preempted; dissent: ordinance is preempted and conflicts with Chapter 112 (court declines to certify conflict with Demings) |
| Whether Demings requires certification of conflict between district courts | Demings held county board preempted where statute clearly limited local investigation to employing agency | Majority distinguishes Demings on constitutional office issues and adopts Timoney’s functional distinction between internal and external investigations | Majority declines to certify conflict; affirms trial court decision upholding CIP |
Key Cases Cited
- Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 990 So.2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (Chapter 112 governs internal investigations; CIP performs independent external oversight)
- Demings v. Orange County Citizens Review Board, 15 So.3d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (county citizen review board conflicted with Chapter 112; employing agency is sole local investigator)
- City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, 114 So.3d 924 (Fla. 2013) (municipal ordinances cannot craft exceptions to statewide statutory schemes; conflict preemption doctrine)
- City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2006) (courts must harmonize related statutory provisions where possible)
- Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist Church v. Dade County, 334 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (local ordinance conflicts when compliance with one provision requires violating the other)