Miami-Dade County v. Rodriguez
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13791
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Rodriguez sues Miami-Dade County for negligence stemming from a police shooting during a burglary response; he sues only the County, not the officers personally.
- The incident occurred February 14, 2008, at a Miami-Dade automotive detailing business; two patrolmen responded to an emergency and shot Rodriguez after a rapid sequence of events.
- Rodriguez challenges the officers’ actions as negligent but not a constitutional violation or intentional act.
- The trial court denied the County’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity; Rodriguez petitioned for certiorari review of that denial.
- The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted certiorari to address whether certiorari review is available when the government asserts immunity from suit, and to clarify jurisdiction in such immunity cases.
- The court distinguishes duty-based liability from immunity and discusses emergency-police-action exceptions and separation-of-powers principles guiding immunity analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is certiorari review available to preclude suit when sovereign immunity is raised? | Rodriguez asserts certiorari is proper to halt a suit immunized from liability. | County contends certiorari is appropriate only where immunity shields from suit, not merely lack of duty. | Yes; certiorari jurisdiction exists when immunity from suit is at issue. |
| Does the police emergency create immunity under Kaisner/Pinellas Park? | Rodriguez argues no emergency-based immunity should apply. | County relies on Kaisner/Pinellas Park to justify immunity in emergencies. | Yes; emergency police action can be immune from tort liability under those precedents. |
| Does Roe limit or bar interlocutory review of immunity orders? | Rodriguez suggests Roe bars immediate review of immunity issues. | County cites Roe to argue less need for immediate review for public officials, but immunity questions may differ. | Roe does not bar interlocutory review where immunity from suit is implicated; conflict certified. |
| Does separation-of-powers immunize certain police-action decisions from tort review? | Rodriguez contends decisions are subject to tort review. | County argues such actions are executive decisions immune from judicial intrusions. | Yes; certain police-action decisions in emergencies are immune, limiting judicial review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1979) (four-part test for discretionary vs. operational functions guiding immunity analysis)
- Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1989) (emergency/discretionary policing actions may be immune from tort review)
- Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1985) (separation-of-powers basis for immune governmental functions)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (duty analysis vs. sovereign immunity; distinction clarified)
- Roe v. Department of Education, 679 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (immunity from suit vs. immunity from liability; path for interlocutory review)