Florida Statute 112.532 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS

Chapter 112
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 112.532

112.532 Law enforcement officers’ and correctional officers’ rights.—All law enforcement officers and correctional officers employed by or appointed to a law enforcement agency or a correctional agency shall have the following rights and privileges:

(1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.—Whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his or her agency for any reason that could lead to disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal, the interrogation must be conducted under the following conditions:

(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. 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, must be provided to each officer who is the subject of the complaint before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer. 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.

(2) COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS.—A complaint review board shall be composed of three members: One member selected by the chief administrator of the agency or unit; one member selected by the aggrieved officer; and a third member to be selected by the other two members. Agencies or units having more than 100 law enforcement officers or correctional officers shall utilize a five-member board, with two members being selected by the administrator, two members being selected by the aggrieved officer, and the fifth member being selected by the other four members. The board members shall be law enforcement officers or correctional officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county. There shall be a board for law enforcement officers and a board for correctional officers whose members shall be from the same discipline as the aggrieved officer. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to sheriffs or deputy sheriffs.

(3) CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.—Every law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall have the right to bring civil suit against any person, group of persons, or organization or corporation, or the head of such organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the performance of the officer’s official duties, for abridgment of the officer’s civil rights arising out of the officer’s performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed. This section does not establish a separate civil action against the officer’s employing law enforcement agency for the investigation and processing of a complaint filed under this part.

(4) NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION; COPY OF AND OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS CONTENTS OF INVESTIGATIVE FILE; CONFIDENTIALITY.—

(a) A dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or other personnel action that might result in loss of pay or benefits or that might otherwise be considered a punitive measure may not be taken against any law enforcement officer or correctional officer unless the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is notified of the action and the reason or reasons for the action before the effective date of the action.

(b) Notwithstanding s. 112.533(5), whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is subject to disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal, the officer or the officer’s representative must, upon request, be provided with a complete copy of the investigative file, including the final investigative report and all evidence, and with the opportunity to address the findings in the report with the employing law enforcement agency before imposing disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. The contents of the complaint and investigation must remain confidential until such time as the employing law enforcement agency makes a final determination whether to issue a notice of disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. This paragraph does not provide law enforcement officers with a property interest or expectancy of continued employment, employment, or appointment as a law enforcement officer.

(5) RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS.—No law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall 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, by reason of his or her exercise of the rights granted by this part.

(6) LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.—

(a) Except as provided in this subsection, disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal may not be undertaken by an agency against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer for any act, omission, or other allegation or complaint of misconduct, regardless of the origin of the allegation or complaint, if the investigation of the allegation or complaint is not completed within 180 days after the date the agency receives notice of the allegation or complaint by a person authorized by the agency to initiate an investigation of the misconduct. 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. Notice to the officer must be provided within 180 days after the date the agency received notice of the alleged misconduct, regardless of the origin of the allegation or complaint, except as follows:

1. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for a period specified in a written waiver of the limitation by the law enforcement officer or correctional officer.

2. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that any criminal investigation or prosecution is pending in connection with the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct.

3. If the investigation involves an officer who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, the running of the limitations period is tolled during the period of incapacitation or unavailability.

4. In a multijurisdictional investigation, the limitations period may be extended for a period of time reasonably necessary to facilitate the coordination of the agencies involved.

5. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for emergencies or natural disasters during the time period wherein the Governor has declared a state of emergency within the jurisdictional boundaries of the concerned agency.

6. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that the officer’s compliance hearing proceeding is continuing beginning with the filing of the notice of violation and a request for a hearing and ending with the written determination of the compliance review panel or upon the violation being remedied by the agency.

(b) An investigation against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer may be reopened, notwithstanding the limitations period for commencing disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, if:

1. Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.

2. The evidence could not have reasonably been discovered in the normal course of investigation or the evidence resulted from the predisciplinary response of the officer.

Any disciplinary action resulting from an investigation that is reopened pursuant to this paragraph must be completed within 90 days after the date the investigation is reopened.

(7) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS RELATING TO A BRADY IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.—

(a) A law enforcement officer or correctional officer has all of the rights specified in s. 112.536 relating to the inclusion of the name and information of the officer in a Brady identification system.

(b) A law enforcement officer or correctional officer may not be discharged, suspended, demoted, or otherwise disciplined, or threatened with discharge, suspension, demotion, or other discipline, by his or her employing agency solely as a result of a prosecuting agency determining that the officer’s name and information should be included in a Brady identification system. This paragraph does not prohibit an officer’s employing agency from discharging, suspending, demoting, or taking other disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer based on the underlying actions of the officer which resulted in his or her name being included in a Brady identification system. If a collective bargaining agreement applies, the actions taken by the officer’s employing agency must conform to the rules and procedures adopted by the collective bargaining agreement.

History.—s. 2, ch. 74-274; s. 2, ch. 82-156; s. 2, ch. 93-19; s. 721, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 98-249; s. 1, ch. 2000-184; s. 1, ch. 2003-149; s. 3, ch. 2005-100; s. 1, ch. 2007-110; s. 1, ch. 2009-200; s. 3, ch. 2020-104; s. 2, ch. 2023-230; s. 3, ch. 2024-86.

F.S. 112.532 on Google Scholar

F.S. 112.532 on CourtListener

Amendments to 112.532

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 112.532

Total Results: 64

Donald F. Buxton v. City of Plant City, Florida, Troy E. Surrency, Individually, Troy E. Surrency, in His Official Capacity

871 F.2d 1037

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 13, 1989 | Docket: 672106

Cited 143 times | Published

Florida’s Policeman’s Bill of Rights, Fla. Stat. § 112.532 (1982). Count III alleged a pendent state claim

Gray v. Rodriguez

481 So. 2d 1298, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 289

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 1986 | Docket: 548883

Cited 33 times | Published

claim for relief is made in the complaint under F.S. 112.532(3)(1983), the so-called "Policeman's Bill of

United States v. Camacho

739 F. Supp. 1504, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6947, 1990 WL 74677

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 25, 1990 | Docket: 2517351

Cited 30 times | Published

counsel to the officers may have violated Fla.Stat. § 112.532(1)(i) which provides that: At the request of

Gary Murphy, Cross-Appellee v. City of Flagler Beach, and Daniel H. Bennett, Cross-Appellants. Gary Murphy v. Flagler Beach, Etc.

761 F.2d 622, 18 Fed. R. Serv. 47, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 268, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30099

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 28, 1985 | Docket: 330250

Cited 30 times | Published

observations supra. 1 . Fla.Stat. § 112.532 (1979) provides in pertinent part: All

Migliore v. City of Lauderhill

415 So. 2d 62

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1982 | Docket: 1512947

Cited 27 times | Published

complaint review board empaneled pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1981). Their requests

Migliore v. City of Lauderhill

431 So. 2d 986, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 2346

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1983 | Docket: 1315647

Cited 23 times | Published

that Complaint Review Boards, authorized by section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1981), were not created

City of Lauderhill v. Rhames

864 So. 2d 432, 2003 WL 22399699

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 2003 | Docket: 1425715

Cited 15 times | Published

the Florida Police Officers' Bill of Rights, section 112.532(4), Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court

Kamenesh v. City of Miami

772 F. Supp. 583, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12703, 1991 WL 179694

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 1991 | Docket: 2419824

Cited 15 times | Published

property interest."). Moreover, Florida Statutes § 112.532(4), a provision of the "Police Officer's Bill

Evans v. Hardcastle

339 So. 2d 1150

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1976 | Docket: 1436643

Cited 15 times | Published

that he was entitled to a hearing pursuant to Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1975); second, that the

Kelly v. Gill

544 So. 2d 1162, 1989 WL 63381

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1989 | Docket: 1286150

Cited 13 times | Published

some limited statutory procedural right (i.e., § 112.532(4), Fla. Stat. (1985)). A statute cannot create

Ragucci v. City of Plantation

407 So. 2d 932

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 1981 | Docket: 1515405

Cited 13 times | Published

three-member Complaint Review Board pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1977).[2] Two of *934

City of Miami v. Cosgrove

516 So. 2d 1125, 1987 WL 3010

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1987 | Docket: 1677954

Cited 11 times | Published

the exclusive remedy for noncompliance with Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1983), is injunctive relief

City of Umatilla v. Public Employees Relations Comm'n

422 So. 2d 905

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1982 | Docket: 1740056

Cited 11 times | Published

DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 112.532, Fla. Stat. (1979): All law enforcement officers

City of Umatilla v. Public Employees Relations Comm'n

422 So. 2d 905

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1982 | Docket: 1740056

Cited 11 times | Published

DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 112.532, Fla. Stat. (1979): All law enforcement officers

Mesa v. Rodriguez

357 So. 2d 711

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1978 | Docket: 453677

Cited 11 times | Published

investigation and to interview Mesa. II. Section 112.532(3), Florida Statutes, the section of the statutes

Allocco v. City of Coral Gables

221 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16563, 2002 WL 2002408

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2002 | Docket: 2017302

Cited 10 times | Published

the Police Officer Bill of Rights, Fla. Stat. § 112.532 and (2) the contract between the City and UM.

City of Hallandale v. Inglima

346 So. 2d 84

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 1977 | Docket: 1734220

Cited 9 times | Published

before a Complaint Review Board, pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Appellees sought

Barton v. City of Eustis, Fla.

415 F. Supp. 1355, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14146

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 1976 | Docket: 2099682

Cited 9 times | Published

process provided under that statute, Fla.Stat. § 112.532(4) (Supp.1974). Sixth, plaintiffs claim that they

McRae v. Douglas

644 So. 2d 1368, 1994 WL 531272

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 1994 | Docket: 1672155

Cited 8 times | Published

employment contract. Count II alleged violation of section 112.532, et. seq., Florida Statutes (Police Officers'

Saunders v. Hunter

980 F. Supp. 1236, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15556, 1997 WL 619219

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 2, 1997 | Docket: 1497529

Cited 6 times | Published

Hunter; and Count VII violations of Fla.Stat. § 112.532 against Hunter. The plaintiff began employment

Grice v. City of Kissimmee

697 So. 2d 186, 1997 WL 400109

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 18, 1997 | Docket: 1776742

Cited 6 times | Published

conducted in conformance with the provisions of section 112.532(1), Florida Statutes, and the applicable provisions

Ujcic v. City of Apopka

581 So. 2d 218, 1991 WL 93532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 1991 | Docket: 1683936

Cited 6 times | Published

hearing before a police review board under section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1989), Ujcic failed to exhaust

Demings v. Orange County Citizens Review Board

15 So. 3d 604, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6554, 2009 WL 1490778

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2009 | Docket: 1661059

Cited 5 times | Published

complies with the procedures set forth in section 112.532, Florida Statutes. These latter statutes, together

Allison v. City of Live Oak

450 F. Supp. 200, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17776

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 12, 1978 | Docket: 1401714

Cited 5 times | Published

taken against a police officer. For example, Section 112.532(4) provides: Notice of disciplinary action

Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel

990 So. 2d 614, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13452, 2008 WL 4058028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 2008 | Docket: 1688245

Cited 4 times | Published

531 and 112.532, Florida Statutes (2007). Section 112.532, known as the "Police Officers' Bill of Rights

Venero v. City of Tampa, Fla.

830 F. Supp. 1457, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13329, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,911, 1993 WL 376786

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 1993 | Docket: 2198896

Cited 4 times | Published

Bill of Rights" contained in Florida Statutes Section 112.532. Such statutory rights have been recognized

Sylvester v. City of Delray Beach

584 So. 2d 214, 1991 WL 158570

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 1991 | Docket: 466951

Cited 4 times | Published

for any alleged retaliation in violation of Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1987). City of Miami v.

West v. STATE, DEPT. OF CRIM. LAW ENFORCEMENT

371 So. 2d 107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1978 | Docket: 1786266

Cited 4 times | Published

Petitioner contends that the provisions of F.S. 112.532 require that law enforcement officers be notified

ORANGE CTY. POL. BENEV. v. City of Casselberry

457 So. 2d 1125

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1984 | Docket: 2547896

Cited 3 times | Published

enforcement officers similar to that provided for by Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1981). This was not accepted

King v. State of Florida

650 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57983, 2009 WL 1928194

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 2009 | Docket: 2378896

Cited 2 times | Published

intended. Any reliance Plaintiff has on Fla. Stat. § 112.532 is entirely erroneous as Fla. Stat. § 112.534

Sharp v. City of Palatka

529 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93624, 2007 WL 4557225

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2007 | Docket: 2244643

Cited 2 times | Published

Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights contained in Section 112.532, Florida Statutes. Id. The City of Palatka

Wardlow v. City of Miami

372 So. 2d 976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1979 | Docket: 1325527

Cited 2 times | Published

enforcement officers while under investigation, § 112.532, Florida Statutes (1974), has been considered

McQuade v. Florida Department of Corrections

51 So. 3d 489, 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1009, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18677, 2010 WL 4829816

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2010 | Docket: 2407832

Cited 1 times | Published

affirmance of the disciplinary action because section 112.532(6)(a), Florida Statutes is not limited to actions

Raynor v. Florida State Lodge

987 So. 2d 152, 2008 WL 2725835

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2008 | Docket: 1723955

Cited 1 times | Published

because the CBA incorporates by reference section 112.532(4)(a), Florida Statutes, requiring written

Hunt v. City of Mulberry

173 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23738, 2001 WL 1402193

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2001 | Docket: 2288299

Cited 1 times | Published

forth in the Police Officers' Bill of Rights, Section 112.532, et seq., Florida Statutes, and Mulberry's

Bailey v. Board of County Com'rs

659 So. 2d 295, 1994 WL 704797

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1994 | Docket: 1462652

Cited 1 times | Published

of action in Counts VII and VIII based on section 112.532, Florida Statutes, the Police *301 Officers'

Perez v. City of Key West, Fla.

823 F. Supp. 934, 84 Educ. L. Rep. 188, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7935

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 1993 | Docket: 2098716

Cited 1 times | Published

(Count III), and violated his rights under Florida Statute 112.532, Policemen's Bill of Rights (Count IV)

D'agastino v. the City of Miami

189 So. 3d 236, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4024, 2016 WL 1051850

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2016 | Docket: 3044891

Published

Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights. Section 112.532 identifies the rights granted to law enforcement

Miami-Dade County v. Dade County Police Benevolent Assoc.

154 So. 3d 373, 2014 WL 6612901, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19300

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 2014 | Docket: 2608481

Published

2d 480, 486 (Fla.2006))); see, e.g„ § 112.532(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (stating “[w]henever

Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida

148 So. 3d 798, 2014 WL 4695131

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2014 | Docket: 1315680

Published

so-called “Bill of Rights Conference” pursuant to section 112.532(4)(b) at which he was given an opportunity

Fraternal Order of Police v. Rutherford

51 So. 3d 485, 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 106, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17647, 2010 WL 4628902

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2010 | Docket: 2408400

Published

532(4)(b) and 112.533(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 112.532(4)(b) provides for confidentiality during an

Avila v. Miami-Dade County

29 So. 3d 401, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2531, 2010 WL 711799

403 So. 2d 1346, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21034

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1981 | Docket: 64585188

Published

review by a Complaint Review Board pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1979), Smith *1347filed

Bembanaste v. City of Hollywood

394 So. 2d 1053, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18769

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1981 | Docket: 64580809

Published

hearing, and (2) certain rights guaranteed by Section 112.532(1) et seq., Florida Statutes (1977), had been

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Aug 15, 1978 | Docket: 3258834

Published

since the issuance of such informal opinions. Section 112.532(2), F. S., which legislatively provides for

Waters v. Purdy

345 So. 2d 368, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15810

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 1977 | Docket: 64558348

Published

been presented for our determination: DOES SECTION 112.532(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1975), REQUIRE A LAW

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Feb 18, 1976 | Docket: 3256459

Published

question as stated is answered in the negative. Section 112.532(2), F. S. (1974 Supp.), provides, inter alia