Schrank v. Bliss

• Decision Date: 09 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-46-Civ-Oc.,75-46-Civ-Oc.
• Citation: Schrank v. Bliss, 412 F.Supp. 28 (M.D. Fla. 1976)
• Parties: Edward SCHRANK, Plaintiff, v. Guy BLISS, Individually and as Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

412 F. Supp. 28

Edward SCHRANK, Plaintiff, v.Guy BLISS, Individually and as Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, Defendant.

No. 75-46-Civ-Oc.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

April 9, 1976.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ben R. Patterson, Michaels & Patterson, Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff.

Jack M. Skelding, Jr., and John W. Costigan, Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Truett & Swedmark, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant.

OPINION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CHARLES R. SCOTT, District Judge.

This cause, commenced under 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1983(1970), and28 U.S.C., Secs. 1331; 1343(3), (4); 1651; 2201 and 2202, is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction.After a hearing on the motion, as well as a subsequent supplementary hearing to update the Court's evidentiary basis concerning plaintiff's status, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as grounds for its issuance of the preliminary injunction.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff, Edward Lewis Schrank, is twenty-five years old, has been married for seven years, and has no children.Since November 1, 1974, he has been employed as a deputy sheriff of the Lake County Sheriff's Department.He has a high school diploma, approximately two years of college-credit study, and received certification from the Police Standards Board after completing three hundred and twenty (320) hours of basic training for his job.He personally paid for the tuition and supplies required for the training.He was not paid while attending training.

Since November 1, 1975, plaintiff has lived in a house which he rents from the United States Forestry Service for $80.00 per month.He lived there first as a tenant at will and then entered into a lease because, as a deputy sheriff of Lake County, he was assigned to forest service patrol at the Pittman Work Center.Paragraph 31 of the lease expressly conditions his continued residence as a tenant upon his continued employment with the Lake County Sheriff's Department.Plaintiff had the use of a Sheriff's Department vehicle while so employed.

After his first six months of employment, indisputably termed the "probationary period" by all witnesses in this cause, plaintiff received a raise of $50.00 per month.There is evidence that plaintiff was at least a satisfactory employee, and at best an excellent deputy.Defendant so averred in his deposition.He had so written in a letter on October 31, 1975 to Mr. and Mrs. George Buizing of Cincinnati, Ohio.The Buizings had spent some time visiting the Lake County, Florida, area and had found the plaintiff to be of assistance and service to them.Upon their return to Ohio they wrote to Sheriff Bliss a letter of commendation concerning plaintiff.In replying, Sheriff Bliss wrote: "Deputy Schrank is a fine officer and we feel he typifies the type of man we want working as a Lake County Deputy."In addition, plaintiff called as a character witness his former supervisor at the Lake County Sheriff's Department, Sgt. Stephen James Simon, now Chief of Police of the City of Mt. Dora.Chief Simon testified that plaintiff is a "conscientious, dedicated and honest law enforcement officer who takes initiative on his own and needs very little supervision.He's a hard worker."In addition, Chief Simon declared that in the community, plaintiff has the reputation as "a very honest man."

Defendant, the Honorable Guy C. Bliss, is the Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, an elected official under Florida Constitution, art. VIII, Sec. 1(1968)andFla.Stat., Sec. 100.041(Supp.1973).He was plaintiff's employer from November 1, 1974 to November 14, 1975.

For approximately six (6) months prior to October 31, 1975, plaintiff and his wife lived in a house owned by Mrs. Hawkins, the landlady.During that time, one of Mrs. Hawkins' former tenants commenced a civil action against her in the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida, alleging trespassory entry and removal of personal property.Plaintiff was to be called as a witness for the former tenant, and against Mrs. Hawkins, in that action.There then ensued a disagreement between Mrs. Hawkins and plaintiff concerning payment of electric utility bills for his apartment.Mrs. Hawkins wrote plaintiff a letter, and plaintiff replied with a letter declaring that he had paid the bills and had cancelled checks to prove the payments.At the hearing before the Court, the evidence was uncontroverted that plaintiff did in fact have cancelled checks to prove his payment of former electric bills.In October, 1975, Mrs. Hawkins again charged plaintiff with failing to pay his electric utility bill, and another dispute arose.On or about November 12, 1975, Mrs. Hawkins telephoned defendant, Sheriff Bliss, and then visited the Sheriff's office concerning the purportedly unpaid electric bill.On November 12, 1975, plaintiff was contacted by Sheriff Bliss, who instructed plaintiff to go to Mrs. Hawkins, settle the matter in dispute and satisfy her or he would take care of the matter.Sheriff Bliss gave plaintiff twenty-four (24) hours to do this, telling him to report back the next day.Plaintiff contacted his attorney who also represented the former tenant of Mrs. Hawkins in the lawsuit against her.That attorney, Michael Hatfield, Esquire, instructed plaintiff not to go near Mrs. Hawkins.Attorney Hatfield then telephoned the Sheriff to inquire about the matter and was assured by the Sheriff that plaintiff need not fear the extreme reprisals, but that the Sheriff wanted the matter of the disputed electric bill taken care of.

On November 13, 1975, the day following plaintiff's instructions from the Sheriff to settle the matter of the disputed electric bill, plaintiff tried to see Sheriff Bliss; but the Sheriff was away.On the next day, November 14, 1975, Sheriff Bliss telephoned plaintiff's residence to tell him to stop by the Sheriff's office when he reported for work that day.When he arrived, plaintiff went to see Sheriff Bliss.Plaintiff carried his small tape recorder with him, which he believed he had a right to do in the absence of his attorney.¹He was anxious and upset, and asked the Sheriff if the meeting might result in discipline.

The following conversation recorded by the plaintiff transpired.

SHERIFF BLISS: "Is the recorder on?"

PLAINTIFF: "Yes, sir."

SHERIFF BLISS: "I'll tell you what.In my opinion, it's insubordination in the fact that you've taken this attitude to be anti the department."

PLAINTIFF: "No, sir.I'm not.I'm 100 percent behind the department, and I work for the good of the department."

SHERIFF BLISS: "I always thought you were."

PLAINTIFF: ". . . and I try to do my best for the department, but in this particular case, this is a matter which I believe concerns her and me.And in my opinion, and the opinion of anyone who knows this woman knows that, you know, there's a personality clash with anyone she has dealings with."

SHERIFF BLISS: "All right, you turn off your machine and take it out, and we'll go from there."

PLAINTIFF: "All right, I'll shut it off.Sir, according to the Policemen's Bill of Rights, I have a right to either record this or have my attorney present."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "I consider that insubordination.You're suspended from duty."

PLAINTIFF: "Yes, sir."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "Okay.We'll notify you for your hearing."

PLAINTIFF: "All right."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "Okay."

At that point, plaintiff left defendant's office, but was recalled a short time later.

PLAINTIFF: "Yes, sir."

SHERIFF BLISS: "I thought I told you not to bring your equipment in."

PLAINTIFF: "I've been suspended now."

SHERIFF BLISS: "Have him take these things out, come back in, and we'll talk about it."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "What things?"

SHERIFF BLISS: "What he has in his hands."

PLAINTIFF: "Now, wait.This is my personal property."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "Just let him go.Don't say nothing to him.Now, I've already told you you're suspended —"

PLAINTIFF: "Right."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "— and you can — for insubordination to the Sheriff.Pick this up so — And then turn in all of your gear —"

PLAINTIFF: "Uh-huh."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "— everything that belongs to the Sheriff's Office.Then go to your attorney, or whatever you want to do, and we'll notify you of your hearing."

PLAINTIFF: "All right.May I use the vehicle to go home and get my uniforms?"

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "No. Someone will take you home."

PLAINTIFF: "All right."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "We're afraid you'll run into a tree with it or something."

PLAINTIFF: "Okay.Am I dismissed?"

SHERIFF BLISS: "No."

PLAINTIFF: "I would like to discuss this like human beings, but I'm afraid that we're not getting anywhere."

SHERIFF BLISS: "You want to do it your way, don't you?"

PLAINTIFF: "I want to do it in a way that is according to the law as I told you before."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "You're suspended.That's according to the law.You'll be notified of your hearing."

PLAINTIFF: "Okay.And the charge?"

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "The charge is insubordination to the Sheriff, for one thing."

PLAINTIFF: "For trying to exercise my rights under the law?"

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "You heard what I said, didn't you?"

PLAINTIFF: "Yes, sir."

CHIEF DEPUTY TANNER: "Get out of here."

On direct examination, under questioning by the Court, Chief Deputy Tanner testified that there was no authorization by the Sheriff for any kind of a hearing such as he had promised plaintiff, and that his sole purpose in telling plaintiff that he would have a hearing was to induce plaintiff to leave the Sheriff's office at once.Attorney Michael Hatfield again contacted the Sheriff and requested a hearing for plaintiff.However, one week later, on November 20, 1975, plaintiff received a letter from defendant, Sheriff Bliss, notifying him that he had been terminated.The letter stated that the effective date of plaintiff's termination...