Hinn v. Beary
| Decision Date | 10 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3161,96-3161 |
| Citation | 701 So.2d 579 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2379 Christopher HINN, Appellant, v. Kevin BEARY, etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gus R. Benitez and Roger B. Butcher of Benitez & Butcher, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Walter A. Ketcham, Jr. and Jeanelle G. Bronson of Grower, Ketcham, More, Rutherford, Noecker, Bronson, Siboni & Eide, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
Christopher Hinn appeals the final summary judgment which determined that as a part-time deputy sheriff he is not covered by Florida's "Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights" ("the Bill of Rights") (sections 112.531-112.535, Florida Statutes (1995)). Hinn contends that the trial court erred in interpreting section 112.321 to cover only full-time deputies and argues that the statute clearly and unambiguously refers to all deputies, whether full- or part-time. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts are not in dispute. Hinn was formerly a part-time auxiliary deputy sheriff ("Reserve I Deputy") against whom an investigation was initiated for abuse of authority. Hinn sought to invoke the Bill of Rights, which includes certain recordation requirements, the right to counsel, and other limitations on the investigative and interrogation procedure. The sheriff contended that Hinn was not entitled to these rights because he was only a part-time deputy and therefore not within the purview of subsection 112.531(1), which provides:
(1) "Law enforcement officer" means any person, other than the chief of police, who is employed full time by any municipality or the state or any subdivision thereof and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, traffic, or highway laws of this state; and includes any person who is appointed by the sheriff as a deputy sheriff pursuant to s. 30.07.
§ 112.531(1), Fla. Stat. (1995) (emphasis added).
Hinn filed a complaint seeking a determination of whether he was covered by the Bill of Rights. Following a hearing, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of the sheriff. The trial court determined both that the statute is ambiguous and that the legislature intended to cover only full-time deputies in the definition of "law enforcement officer." The court agreed with the sheriff's argument that there was no reason to believe that the legislature intended to make a distinction between part-time deputies on the one hand and part-time police officers and highway patrolmen on the other for the purposes of coverage under the Bill of Rights.
As an initial matter, during the pendency of this appeal the investigation has been completed and Hinn's appointment revoked, leading the sheriff to argue that this appeal is moot. Although technically this case is moot, we will address the coverage of the Bill of Rights because this issue is "likely to recur" and therefore review is appropriate. Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992); see also Roesch v. State, 633 So.2d 1, 2 n. 1 (Fla.1993) ().
Turning to the merits, we agree that subsection 112.531(1) is ambiguous and subject to judicial interpretation because "full-time" could be read to modify either only employees or both employees and deputies. In determining the meaning of an ambiguous statute, "legislative intent is the polestar by which the court must be guided." Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n v. Florida Div. of Admin. Hearings, 686 So.2d 1349, 1354 (Fla.1997) (quoting State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla.1981)). In discerning legislative intent, the statute "must be considered as a whole, including the evil to be corrected, the language of the act, including its title, the history of its enactment, and the state of the law already in existence bearing on the subject." State v. Patterson, 694 So.2d 55, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (citing Webb, 398 So.2d at 824).
We agree with the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson, 3D99-2224.
...and the state of law already in existence on the statute. See McKibben v. Mallory, 293 So.2d 48, 52 (Fla.1974); Hinn v. Beary, 701 So.2d 579, 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Section 790.23 is intended to protect the public from persons, who, because of their past conduct, have demonstrated they ar......
-
Demings v. Orange County Citizens Rev. Bd.
...other provisions in part VI of chapter 112, are commonly referred to as the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights. Hinn v. Beary, 701 So.2d 579, 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Enacted in 1974, section 112.533 was amended in chapter 2003-149, Laws of Florida, which explains in the title that the ......