LEO’s Bill of Rights in Florida

In Florida, a law enforcement officer is entitled to the protections in Florida Statute Section 112.532, Florida’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights. These rights apply when the is under an internal affairs investigation and subject to interrogation by members of the officer’s agency for any reason that could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal. The LEO’s Bill of Rights does not protect many routine police inquiries and reports since the officer is not “under investigation.”

Examples of disciplinary action that might be taken against a law enforcement officer include dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or any other personnel action that might result in loss of pay or benefits or that might otherwise be considered a punitive measure. Before such disciplinary action can be taken, the law enforcement officer must be notified of the action and the reason or reasons for the action. See Section 112.532(4)(a), F.S.

Attorney on Florida LEOs Bill of Right

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm are familiar with the provisions of Florida’s LEOs Bill of Rights under Section 112.532. We understand the conditions under which the officer’s internal affairs interrogation must be conducted, including limitations on the time, place, manner, and length of the interrogation, as well as restrictions on the interrogation techniques.

When a law enforcement agency or correctional agency fails to comply with the requirements of Part VI of ch. 112, F.S., we understand the requirements for filing a notice of the violation.

Contact us for a free consultation. Visit our main office in downtown Tampa. We also have offices in Clearwater in Pinellas County and New Port Richey in Pasco County, FL.

Call 813-250-0500.

Requirements for Interrogation of LEO

Once the investigation questioning or report focuses on the officer’s conduct for disciplinary purposes, the agency must comply with Section 112.532(1), Florida Statutes. The restrictions on how the internal affairs interrogation of the officer is conducted include the following:

• (a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is of such a degree that immediate action is required.
• (b) The interrogation shall take place either at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct, police unit, or correctional unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or agency.
• (c) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation shall be informed of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating officer, and all persons present during the interrogation.
  • All questions directed to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by or through one interrogator during any one investigative interrogation, unless specifically waived by the officer under investigation.
• (d) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation must be informed of:
  • the nature of the investigation before any interrogation begins, and
  • he or she must be informed of the names of all complainants.
  • All identifiable witnesses shall be interviewed, whenever possible, prior to the beginning of the investigative interview of the accused officer.
  • must be provided to each officer who is the subject of the complaint
  • Before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer, the officer must be provided with:
    • the complaint;
    • all witness statements, including all other existing subject officer statements, and
    • all other existing evidence, including, but not limited to:
      • incident reports;
      • GPS locator information; and
      • audio or video recordings relating to the incident under investigation,
  • An officer, after being informed of the right to review witness statements, may voluntarily waive the provisions of this paragraph and provide a voluntary statement at any time.
• (e) Interrogating sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.
• (f) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation may not be subjected to offensive language or be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.
  • A promise or reward may not be made as an inducement to answer any questions.
• (g) The formal interrogation of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, including all recess periods, must be recorded on audio tape, or otherwise preserved in such a manner as to allow a transcript to be prepared, and there shall be no unrecorded questions or statements.
  • Upon the request of the interrogated officer, a copy of any recording of the interrogation session must be made available to the interrogated officer no later than 72 hours, excluding holidays and weekends, following said interrogation.
• (h) If the law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation is under arrest, or is likely to be placed under arrest as a result of the interrogation, he or she shall be completely informed of all his or her rights before commencing the interrogation.
• (i) At the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation, he or she has the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his or her choice, who shall be present at all times during the interrogation whenever the interrogation relates to the officer’s continued fitness for law enforcement or correctional service.
• (j) Notwithstanding the rights and privileges provided by this part, this part does not limit the right of an agency to discipline or to pursue criminal charges against an officer.

Read more about the LEO Bill of Rights in Section 112.532, Florida Statutes.

Notice of Disciplinary Action Against LEOs in Florida

Under Section 112.532(6), F.S., no disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal may be taken unless the internal affairs investigation is completed within 180 days of receipt of a notice of a complaint against an officer, unless:

• The subject officer agrees to toll the time period in a written waiver;
• A criminal investigation or prosecution in connection with the officer’s alleged act, omission, or other misconduct is ongoing;
• The subject officer is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable;
• The internal affairs investigation is part of a multijurisdictional investigation, and an extension is reasonably necessary to facilitate coordination;
• An emergency or natural disaster occurs, and is the subject of a declared state of emergency; or
• The subject officer’s compliance hearing is ongoing (a hearing is deemed to end with the compliance review panel’s written determination or other remedy by the agency).

The Agency must provide notice to the officer within 180 days after the date that it received notice of the alleged misconduct, regardless of the origin of the allegation or complaint. See Section 112.532(6)(a), F.S.

If the agency determines that disciplinary action is appropriate, it shall complete its investigation and give notice in writing to the law enforcement officer or correctional officer of its intent to proceed with disciplinary action, along with a proposal of the specific action sought, including length of suspension, if applicable.

Reopening of Investigation Against a LEO

An internal affairs investigation against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer may be reopened if:

• significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation; and
  • such evidence could not have reasonably been discovered in the normal course of the investigation; or
  • the evidence resulted from the predisciplinary response of the officer.

Such an investigation must be completed within 90 days after the date it was reopened as required by Section 112.532(6)(b), F.S.

Agency Non-Compliance with the LEOs Bill of Rights

Section 112.534, F.S., provides a method of recourse for an officer who alleges that any law enforcement agency or correctional agency, including investigators in its internal affairs or professional standards division, or an assigned investigating supervisor, intentionally failed to comply with the requirements of Part VI of ch. 112, F.S., related to an investigation of a complaint against that officer. See ss. 112.531-112.535, F.S.

The officer must give the investigator notice of the intentional violation of the requirements of this part, which is alleged to have occurred. Giving such notice of the violation is sufficient to notify the investigator of the requirements of the LEOs Bill of Rights which are alleged to have been violated and the factual basis of each violation. See Section 112.534(1)(a), F.S.

If the investigator fails to cure the violation or continues the violation after being notified by the law enforcement officer or correctional officer, the officer shall request the agency head or his or her designee be informed of the alleged intentional violation as required by Section 112.534(1)(b), F.S.

After this request is made, the officer’s interview shall cease, and the officer’s refusal to respond to further investigative questions does not constitute insubordination or any similar policy violation.

Within three (3) working days, the subject officer must file a “written notice of violation and request a compliance review hearing.” This document is filed with the agency head or designee. It must contain sufficient information to identify the requirements of part VI of ch. 112, F.S., which are alleged to have been violated, and the factual basis of each violation.

All evidence related to the investigation must be preserved for review and presentation at the compliance review hearing. For purposes of confidentiality, the compliance review panel hearing shall be considered part of the original investigation. See Section 112.534(1)(c), F.S.

Unless otherwise remedied by the agency before the hearing, a compliance review hearing must be conducted within ten (10) working days after the request for a compliance review hearing is filed, unless, by mutual agreement of the officer and agency or for extraordinary reasons, an alternate date is chosen. The compliance review panel shall review the circumstances and facts surrounding the alleged intentional violation. See Section 112.534(1)(d), F.S.

Composition of the Compliance Review Panel

Section 112.534(1)(d), F.S., sets forth the composition of compliance review panels, which hold compliance review hearings when requested by an officer with a complaint. It is the responsibility of the compliance review panel to determine whether the investigator or agency intentionally violated the requirements provided under part VI of ch. 112, F.S.

The panel may hear evidence, review relevant documents, and hear argument before making a determination. All evidence received shall be strictly limited to the allegation under consideration and may not be related to the disciplinary charges pending against the officer.22

The officer bears the burden of proof in the hearing. The determination of the panel must be made at the conclusion of the hearing, in writing, and filed with the agency head and the officer.

If the alleged violation is sustained as intentional by the compliance review panel, the agency head shall immediately remove the investigator from any further involvement with the investigation of the officer. Additionally, the agency head shall direct an investigation be initiated against the investigator for purposes of agency disciplinary action.

If that investigation is sustained, the sustained allegations against the investigator shall be forwarded to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission for review as an act of official misconduct or misuse of position.

The Administrative Procedure Act Does Not Apply

The aggrieved officer’s only avenue of redress is through the compliance review panel process. Other administrative procedures are typically not available to the officer. For example, the Administrative Procedure Act allows some claims to be decided at the Department of Administrative Hearings. However, effective July 1, 2009, Section 112.534(2)(b), F.S., explains that provisions of ch. 120, F.S., “do not apply” to part VI of ch. 112, F.S. Chapter 120, F.S. That statutory prohibition against an officer seeking relief in the administrative law system became effective on July 1, 2009.

Additionally, in 2009, the following language was removed from Section 112.534(g), F.S.:

“[A] law enforcement officer or correctional officer employed by or appointed to such agency who is personally injured by such failure to comply may apply directly to the circuit court of the county wherein such agency is headquartered and permanently resides for an injunction to restrain and enjoin such violation of the provisions of this part and to compel the performance of the duties imposed by this part.”

Chapter 2009-200, L.O.F.

Retaliation – Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights

If a law enforcement officer or correction officer exercises rights guaranteed under Florida’s Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights, the office shall not, by reason of his or her exercise of the rights granted by Section Section 112.532, be:

• discharged;
• disciplined;
• demoted;
• denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment; or
• otherwise discriminated against in regard to his or her employment or appointment, or
• be threatened with any such treatment.

Under this provision, the agency may not retaliate against an officer for exercising their rights.

Florida’s Complaint Review Boards

Section 112.532(2) explains the requirements for complaint review boards, including:

• the complaint review board shall be composed of three members:
• one member is selected by the chief administrator of the agency or unit;
• one member is selected by the aggrieved officer; and
• the third member is selected by the other two members.

Agencies or units with more than 100 law enforcement officers or correctional officers shall utilize a five-member board, with two members selected by the administrator, two selected by the aggrieved officer, and the fifth selected by the other four members.

In Ujcic v. City of Apopka, 581 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the court noted that this provision discussing complaint review boards “appears abruptly in the statute…No reference is made to a review board in any other portion of the statute, and the subsection is silent as to the duties, powers, or functions of a review board. The abrupt and puzzling appearance of the subsection was recognized earlier by Florida’s attorney general, who noted that courts have complained about the vagueness of the statute. Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 076- 38 (Feb. 18, 1976). The statute remains without legislative clarification.”

In Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983), the Florida Supreme Court concluded the complaint review boards were not created
to review disciplinary action against police officers.

This article was last updated on Wednesday, September 25, 2024.