Smith v. Town of Golden Beach
Decision Date | 08 September 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-1808,80-1808 |
Citation | 403 So.2d 1346 |
Parties | George SMITH, Appellant, v. TOWN OF GOLDEN BEACH, Richard Granata and James L. Roden, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
E. T. Hunter and Gordon C. Brydger and Harry Hipler, Hollywood, for appellant.
Greene & Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Pyszka & Kessler and John Hamilton, Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
George Smith was a probationary police officer employed by the town of Golden Beach when he was discharged from his position without prior written notice on June 28, 1978. When the town failed to act on Smith's request for review by a Complaint Review Board pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1979), Smith filed suit against the town of Golden Beach, Richard Granata and James Roden as police chief of the town of Golden Beach. Smith alleged violation of his right to due process under the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States claiming that he was entitled to the process of review offered by the statute because he had been interrogated within the meaning of Section 112.532(1), Florida Statutes (1979) and had not been afforded his right to pre-termination notice under Section 112.532(4). The trial court, without specifying its reason, dismissed those counts of Smith's amended complaint claiming rights under Section 112.531, et seq. and Smith appeals.
In determining whether there are any conceivable sets of facts which would support Smith's claims under Section 112.531, et. seq. and the Constitutions of the United States and Florida against a motion to dismiss, we must first determine whether Smith as a probationary police officer is entitled under Section 112.532 to the rights of the law enforcement officers enumerated in subsections one through five of that Section, and second, whether Smith had either a property or liberty interest which required procedural protection. See, e. g., Allison v. City of Live Oak, 450 F.Supp. 200 (M.D.Fla.1978) ( ); Barton v. City of Eustis, 415 F.Supp. 1355 (M.D.Fla.1976) ( ).
First, Smith cites us no Florida case and we find none which grants to a probationary policeman the protections offered by Section 112.531, et. seq., Florida Statutes (1979). 1 In Bembanaste v. City of Hollywood, 394 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the court specifically declined to reach the issue of whether a probationary police officer is "employed full time" within the meaning of Section 112.531(1), Florida Statutes (1979) 2 in holding that a probationary policeman was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing. Though Smith argues with some force that the provision granting rights to "all law enforcement officers" under Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1979) includes probationary employees, we disagree.
Prior to the effective date of Section 112.531(1), et. seq., a city could by its own rules or ordinances provide that a probationary policeman may be discharged without cause or assignment of reason. See, e. g., Purdy v. Cole, 317 So.2d 820 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Absent express procedural provisions to the contrary, the enforcement of such city ordinances continued after enactment of the Florida Policeman's Bill of Rights. See, e. g., City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 378 So.2d 20 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) ( ); Archer v. City of Miami, 360 So.2d 34 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) ( ). In light of the past practice of excluding probationary policemen from procedural rights accorded permanent employees, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended to include probationers within the statute or that the statute as currently worded creates an expectation of continuing employment for probationary employees. Accordingly, we hold that a probationary police officer is not "employed full time" within the meaning of Section 112.531(1) and is not entitled to the rights and privileges under Section 112.532.
We now address Smith's claim that he is entitled to procedural protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution. Cf. West v. State Department of Criminal Law Enforcement, 371 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ( ). In order to avail himself of procedural protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, Smith must first establish a deprivation of either a property or liberty interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). See, e. g., Parratt v. Taylor, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).
Our decision above precludes Smith from finding an entitlement or property interest as probationary employee under Sections 112.531, et. seq., Florida Statutes (1979). Neither may Smith claim an expectation of employment under local rules where Rule 100 of the Golden Beach Police Department Rule provides that a probationary police officer may be dismissed without cause. Compare Thurston v. Dekle, 531 F.2d 1264, 1272 (5th Cir. 1976) (, )vacated, 438 U.S. 901, 98 S.Ct. 3118, 57 L.Ed.2d 1144 (1978) for further consideration in light of Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) and Barton v. City of Eustis, supra ( ) with Purdy v. Cole, supra ( ).
Smith also alleges loss of reputation. In order to successfully assert a due process violation based on loss of reputation, however, Smith must allege the acts disparaging his reputation, deny the truth of those acts or words, Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977), allege that the loss of reputation was in conjunction with some interest such as loss of employment and establish that the reasons for discharge from employment were disclosed to the general public. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976). Here, the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allocco v. City of Coral Gables
...law enforcement officers", the plaintiffs cannot claim protection under the Officer Bill of Rights. See Smith v. Town of Golden Beach, 403 So.2d 1346, 1347-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (finding that individual employed by town as probationary officer was not employed "full time" and could not clai......
-
Keller v. City of Tallahassee
...§ 112.531, Florida Statutes because he was a probationary employee. ECF No. 51-11, at 14; ECF No. 51-4; Smith v. Town of Golden Beach , 403 So.2d 1346, 1347–48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).3 Keller's procedural due process claim is instead based on a "stigma-plus" liberty-interest theory, which requi......
-
Susanno v. Lee County Bd. of County Com'rs, 93-188-CIV-FtM-15D.
...rule of law that at-will employees have no property interest in their continued employment. Id.; see also Smith v. Town of Golden Beach, 403 So.2d 1346, 1347-48 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (affirming a lower court's dismissal of an employee's due process claim because the employee could be termi......
-
Crews v. Ellis, 88-84
...and establish that the reasons for discharge from employment were disclosed to the general public." Smith v. Town of Golden Beach, 403 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (citations omitted). With regard to the requirement that a petitioner must deny the truth of the acts or words disparagi......