Bowlin v. Dade County, 73--1431

• Decision Date: 11 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73--1431,73--1431
• Citation: 296 So.2d 602
• Parties: Dale Patric BOWLIN, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF DADE, its Department of Public Safety, and E. Wilson Purdy, as Director thereof, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 602

296 So.2d 602

Dale Patric BOWLIN, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF DADE, its Department of Public Safety, and E. Wilson Purdy, as Director thereof, Appellees.

No. 73--1431.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 11, 1974.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1974.

Tobias Simon and Elizabeth du Fresne, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., and Alan T. Dimond, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant is Dale Patric Bowlin, a Dade County Department of Public Safety lieutenant. The appellee is Dade County, its Department of Public Safety and E. Wilson Purdy, its director. The issues presented upon appeal are twofold: (1) Whether the 'Rule of Four' contained in § 6, Chapter 3 of the Dade County Personnel Rules, which gives discretion to the Department to promote from the highest of four candidates, ¹ is unconstitutional on its face, and (2) whether the application of the rule to the case at bar is so capricious and arbitrary as to constitute discrimination.

In February of 1973 twenty-five police lieutenants took the competitive examination for police captain. Eleven passed the examination and were placed on the eligibility list. Since that time, four eligible lieutenants have been promoted to the rank of captain. Two were passed over of which Bowlin was one.

In April of 1973, the appellant as plaintiff filed his complaint for declarative and injunctive relief seeking to require the defendants to 'promote the plaintiff to the post of police captain.' The complaint was in two counts. The first sought to have defendant's system of promotion, the so-called 'Rule of Four,' declared unconstitutional and the second alleged that the defendants had imposed an unlawful requirement for promotion upon plaintiff. The circuit judge, after a full evidentiary hearing, entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants who are appellees here holding that the 'Rule of Four' is 'constitutional on its face and that it is a reasonable method for selecting the best qualified persons and is not unconstitutional for lack of standards.'

Appellant's second count alleged discrimination in that an unconstitutional rule had been applied to him. Upon this issue, the trial court held:

'It is the finding of this Court that there was not an abuse of discretion in refusing to promote the Plaintiff and that he was refused promotion solely because of his failure to attend college.

'Finally, the Court finds that the procedures followed in the instant promotional process were in accordance with County rules and regulations and were followed in a manner not violative of the United States Constitution.'

Thereupon, the trial court entered final judgment for the defendant.

On this appeal, appellant presents two points which in effect argue that the findings of the trial court are wrong upon each of the two counts. He first urges that the 'Rule of Four' is void and unconstitutional upon its face, asserting that the rule allows for an impermissible degree of arbitrary and subjective actions on the part of administrators in promoting subordinates. He urges that once public employment is granted it cannot be subjected to arbitrary, capricious or whimsical regulations which would act to deprive him of promotional benefits. Appellant relies upon the principle of law that an ordinance may not delegate legislative power unless objective guidelines and standards appear therein so that the legislative power may not be capriciously exercised. The cases cited in support of the application of this principle to appellant's complaint are Permenter v. Younan, 159 Fla. 226, 31 So.2d 387 (1947), which dealt with a revocation of a license to do business; North Bay Village v. Blackwell, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 524, which dealt with an ordinance concerning the granting of building permits; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Anderson, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 544, which dealt with the granting of a permit to...