Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 112.533 (2025)

Receipt and processing of complaints.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

112.533 Receipt and processing of complaints.—

(1) It is the intent of the Legislature to make the process for receiving, processing, and investigation of complaints against law enforcement or correctional officers, and the rights and privileges provided in this part while under investigation, apply uniformly throughout this state and its political subdivisions.

(2) As used in this section, the term “political subdivision” means a separate agency or unit of local government created or established by law or ordinance and the officers thereof and includes, but is not limited to, an authority, a board, a branch, a bureau, a city, a commission, a consolidated government, a county, a department, a district, an institution, a metropolitan government, a municipality, an office, an officer, a public corporation, a town, or a village.

(3) A political subdivision may not adopt or attempt to enforce any ordinance relating to either of the following:

(a) The receipt, processing, or investigation by any political subdivision of this state of complaints of misconduct by law enforcement or correctional officers, except as expressly provided in this section.

(b) Civilian oversight of law enforcement agencies’ investigations of complaints of misconduct by law enforcement or correctional officers.

(4)(a) Every law enforcement agency and correctional agency shall establish and put into operation a system for the receipt, investigation, and determination of complaints received by such agency from any person, which must be the procedure for investigating a complaint against a law enforcement or correctional officer and for determining whether to proceed with disciplinary action or to file disciplinary charges, notwithstanding any other law or ordinance to the contrary. When law enforcement or correctional agency personnel assigned the responsibility of investigating the complaint prepare an investigative report or summary, regardless of form, the person preparing the report shall, at the time the report is completed:

1. Verify pursuant to s. 92.525 that the contents of the report are true and accurate based upon the person’s personal knowledge, information, and belief.

2. Include the following statement, sworn and subscribed to pursuant to s. 92.525:

“I, the undersigned, do hereby swear, under penalty of perjury, that, to the best of my personal knowledge, information, and belief, I have not knowingly or willfully deprived, or allowed another to deprive, the subject of the investigation of any of the rights contained in ss. 112.532 and 112.533, Florida Statutes.”

The requirements of subparagraphs 1. and 2. must be completed before the determination as to whether to proceed with disciplinary action or to file disciplinary charges. This subsection does not preclude the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission from exercising its authority under chapter 943.

(b) Any political subdivision that initiates or receives a complaint against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall within 5 business days forward the complaint to the employing agency of the officer who is the subject of the complaint for review or investigation. Notwithstanding the rights and privileges provided under this part or any provisions provided in a collective bargaining agreement, the agency head or the agency head’s designee may request a sworn or certified investigator from a separate law enforcement or correctional agency to conduct the investigation when a conflict is identified with having an investigator conduct the investigation of an officer of the same employing agency; the employing agency does not have an investigator trained to conduct such investigations; or the agency’s investigator is the subject of, or a witness in, the investigation and such agency is composed of any combination of 35 or fewer law enforcement officers or correctional officers. The employing agency must document the identified conflict. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator shall present the findings without any disciplinary recommendation to the employing agency.

(5)(a) A complaint filed against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer with a law enforcement agency or correctional agency and all information obtained pursuant to the investigation by the agency of the complaint is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the investigation ceases to be active, or until the agency head or the agency head’s designee provides written notice to the officer who is the subject of the complaint, either personally or by mail, that the agency has concluded the investigation with either a finding:

1. Not to proceed with disciplinary action or to file charges; or

2. To proceed with disciplinary action or to file charges.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the officer who is the subject of the complaint, along with legal counsel or any other representative of his or her choice, may review the complaint and all statements regardless of form made by the complainant and witnesses and all existing evidence, including, but not limited to, incident reports, analyses, GPS locator information, and audio or video recordings relating to the investigation, immediately before beginning the investigative interview. All statements, regardless of form, provided by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during the course of a complaint investigation of that officer must be made under oath pursuant to s. 92.525. Knowingly false statements given by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation may subject the law enforcement officer or correctional officer to prosecution for perjury. If a witness to a complaint is incarcerated in a correctional facility and may be under the supervision of, or have contact with, the officer under investigation, only the names and written statements of the complainant and nonincarcerated witnesses may be reviewed by the officer under investigation immediately before the beginning of the investigative interview.

(b) This subsection does not apply to any public record which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to chapter 119. For the purposes of this subsection, an investigation is considered active as long as it is continuing with a reasonable, good faith anticipation that an administrative finding will be made in the foreseeable future. An investigation is presumed to be inactive if no finding is made within 45 days after the complaint is filed.

(c) Notwithstanding this section, the complaint and information must be available to law enforcement agencies, correctional agencies, and state attorneys in the conduct of a lawful criminal investigation.

(6) A law enforcement officer or correctional officer has the right to review his or her official personnel file at any reasonable time under the supervision of the designated records custodian. A law enforcement officer or correctional officer may attach to the file a concise statement in response to any items included in the file identified by the officer as derogatory, and copies of such items must be made available to the officer.

(7) Any person who is a participant in an internal investigation, including the complainant, the subject of the investigation and the subject’s legal counsel or a representative of his or her choice, the investigator conducting the investigation, and any witnesses in the investigation, who willfully discloses any information obtained pursuant to the agency’s investigation, including, but not limited to, the identity of the officer under investigation, the nature of the questions asked, information revealed, or documents furnished in connection with a confidential internal investigation of an agency, before such complaint, document, action, or proceeding becomes a public record as provided in this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. However, this subsection does not limit a law enforcement or correctional officer’s ability to gain access to information under paragraph (5)(a). Additionally, a sheriff, police chief, or other head of a law enforcement agency, or his or her designee, is not precluded by this section from acknowledging the existence of a complaint and the fact that an investigation is underway.

History.—s. 3, ch. 74-274; s. 3, ch. 82-156; s. 1, ch. 82-405; s. 1, ch. 83-136; s. 1, ch. 87-59; s. 2, ch. 89-223; s. 1, ch. 90-32; s. 31, ch. 90-360; s. 3, ch. 93-19; s. 722, ch. 95-147; s. 39, ch. 96-406; s. 2, ch. 98-249; s. 2, ch. 2000-184; s. 2, ch. 2003-149; s. 33, ch. 2004-335; s. 42, ch. 2005-251; s. 2, ch. 2007-110; s. 1, ch. 2007-118; s. 2, ch. 2009-200; s. 4, ch. 2020-104; s. 2, ch. 2024-86.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 112.533

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§112.533(4)OBSTRUCTRENUMBERED. SEE REC # 10547M · 1st

§112.533(7)OBSTRUCTDISCLOSE INFO ON INTERNAL LEO/CORR INVESTIGM · 1st

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: D'agastino v. the City of Miami, 189 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

D'agastino v. the City of Miami, 189 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). · cites it 65× “A side-by-side comparison of the two laws reveals the pertinent provisions to be as follows: § 112.533, Fla. Stat. (2007) Art. II, § 11.”

Demings v. Orange Cnty. Citizens Review Bd., 15 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). · cites it 25× ““Political subdivision” is expressly defined to include counties and any board, commission or other “agency or unit of local government created or established by law or ordinance” by a local government.”

Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012). · cites it 8× “075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes (1997), and section 112.533, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990).”

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). · cites it 8× “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

McQuade v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 10× “2d at 64 (quoting § 112.533, Fla. Stat. (1981)). The court further concluded that the significant language of this provision was "complaints received by such employing agency from any person," and determined that this language indicated that the statute "provid[ed] a law…”

Donald F. Buxton v. City of Plant City, Florida, Troy E. Surrency, Individually, Troy E. Surrency, in His Off. Capacity, 871 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Fla.Stat. § 112.533 (1987) (substantively the same as Fla.”

City of Delray Beach v. Barfield, 579 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). · cites it 9× “3 When, however, a complaint is in writing and has been formally filed with the agency by someone, then (and only then) the exemption of subsection (2) of § 112.533 may be applicable and prevent disclosure before a conclusion of the investigation and the issuance of a formal…”

Giraldo v. City of Hollywood Florida, 142 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 7× “[DE 99 ¶ 234], In 2005, the Eleventh Circuit held that Fla. Stat. § 112.533 (4) is an “unconstitutional abridgement of core First Amendment Rights.”

Avila v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 29 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). · cites it 14× “The Plaintiffs believe it should not have taken so long to investigate the complainant’s allegations and point to Fla. Stat. § 112.533 (2)(b) for the proposition that an “investigation will be presumed to be inactive if no finding is made within 45 days after the complaint is…”

Mullins v. Dep't of Law Enf't, 942 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). · cites it 3× “93-61 (1993) (opining that section 112.533 applies to complaint filed with employing agency by any person, whether within or outside the agency).”

King v. State of Florida, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (N.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 4× “Additionally, Fla. Stat. § 112.533 (1) directs every law enforcement agency to create a system for the “receipt, investigation, and determination of complaints received by such agency from any person .”

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Assoc., 154 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). · cites it 15× “e OIG and the County on behalf of three police officers whose activities had been the subject of the OIG investigation, claiming that the County and the OIG had no authority to conduct an investigation into the activities of MDPD officers as the MDPD “was the ‘exclusive’ agency…”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— 112.533(1) — 5 cases

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

D'agastino v. the City of Miami, 189 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “A side-by-side comparison of the two laws reveals the pertinent provisions to be as follows: § 112.533, Fla. Stat. (2007) Art. II, § 11.”

Demings v. Orange Cnty. Citizens Review Bd., 15 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). ““Political subdivision” is expressly defined to include counties and any board, commission or other “agency or unit of local government created or established by law or ordinance” by a local government.”

Mullins v. Dep't of Law Enf't, 942 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “93-61 (1993) (opining that section 112.533 applies to complaint filed with employing agency by any person, whether within or outside the agency).”

City of Delray Beach v. Barfield, 579 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). “3 When, however, a complaint is in writing and has been formally filed with the agency by someone, then (and only then) the exemption of subsection (2) of § 112.533 may be applicable and prevent disclosure before a conclusion of the investigation and the issuance of a formal…”

— 112.533(1)(a) — 5 cases

McQuade v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “2d at 64 (quoting § 112.533, Fla. Stat. (1981)). The court further concluded that the significant language of this provision was "complaints received by such employing agency from any person," and determined that this language indicated that the statute "provid[ed] a law…”

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

— 112.533(1)(b) — 1 case

— 112.533(2) — 6 cases

Forsberg v. Hous. Auth. of City of Miami B., 455 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1984).

Hernandez v. Ptomey, 549 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

— 112.533(2)(a) — 11 cases

Fraternal Order of Police v. Rutherford, 51 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

Kamenesh v. City of Miami, 772 F. Supp. 583 (S.D. Fla. 1991).

McDougall v. Culver, 3 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

— 112.533(2)(b) — 4 cases

Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012). “075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes (1997), and section 112.533, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990).”

Avila v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 29 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “The Plaintiffs believe it should not have taken so long to investigate the complainant’s allegations and point to Fla. Stat. § 112.533 (2)(b) for the proposition that an “investigation will be presumed to be inactive if no finding is made within 45 days after the complaint is…”

State v. Peterson, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 140 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1984).

— 112.533(2)(c) — 1 case

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

— 112.533(3) — 2 cases

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

State v. Peterson, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 140 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1984).

— 112.533(4) — 2 cases

Giraldo v. City of Hollywood Florida, 142 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “[DE 99 ¶ 234], In 2005, the Eleventh Circuit held that Fla. Stat. § 112.533 (4) is an “unconstitutional abridgement of core First Amendment Rights.”

— 112.533(6) — 1 case

State v. Peterson, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 140 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1984).

— 112.533(l)(a) — 5 cases

D'Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2017). “§ 112.533(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added).”

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Assoc., 154 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “e OIG and the County on behalf of three police officers whose activities had been the subject of the OIG investigation, claiming that the County and the OIG had no authority to conduct an investigation into the activities of MDPD officers as the MDPD “was the ‘exclusive’ agency…”

Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

— 112.533(l)(b) — 3 cases

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.