Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 112.534 (2025)
Failure to comply; official misconduct.
✓ 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
112.534 Failure to comply; official misconduct.—
(1) If any law enforcement agency or correctional agency, including investigators in its internal affairs or professional standards division, or an assigned investigating supervisor, intentionally fails to comply with the requirements of this part, the following procedures apply. For purposes of this section, the term “law enforcement officer” or “correctional officer” includes the officer’s representative or legal counsel, except in application of paragraph (d).
(a) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall advise the investigator of the intentional violation of the requirements of this part which is alleged to have occurred. The officer’s notice of violation is sufficient to notify the investigator of the requirements of this part which are alleged to have been violated and the factual basis of each violation.
(b) If the investigator fails to cure the violation or continues the violation after being notified by the law enforcement officer or correctional officer, the officer shall request the agency head or his or her designee be informed of the alleged intentional violation. Once this request is made, the interview of the officer shall cease, and the officer’s refusal to respond to further investigative questions does not constitute insubordination or any similar type of policy violation.
(c) Thereafter, within 3 working days, a written notice of violation and request for a compliance review hearing shall be filed with the agency head or designee which must contain sufficient information to identify the requirements of this part which are alleged to have been violated and the factual basis of each violation. All evidence related to the investigation must be preserved for review and presentation at the compliance review hearing. For purposes of confidentiality, the compliance review panel hearing shall be considered part of the original investigation.
(d) Unless otherwise remedied by the agency before the hearing, a compliance review hearing must be conducted within 10 working days after the request for a compliance review hearing is filed, unless, by mutual agreement of the officer and agency or for extraordinary reasons, an alternate date is chosen. The panel shall review the circumstances and facts surrounding the alleged intentional violation. The compliance review panel shall be made up of three members: one member selected by the agency head, one member selected by the officer filing the request, and a third member to be selected by the other two members. The review panel members shall be law enforcement officers or correctional officers who are active from the same law enforcement discipline as the officer requesting the hearing. Panel members may be selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county in which the officer works. The compliance review hearing shall be conducted in the county in which the officer works.
(e) It is the responsibility of the compliance review panel to determine whether or not the investigator or agency intentionally violated the requirements provided under this part. It may hear evidence, review relevant documents, and hear argument before making such a determination; however, all evidence received shall be strictly limited to the allegation under consideration and may not be related to the disciplinary charges pending against the officer. The investigative materials are considered confidential for purposes of the compliance review hearing and determination.
(f) The officer bears the burden of proof to establish that the violation of this part was intentional. The standard of proof for such a determination is by a preponderance of the evidence. The determination of the panel must be made at the conclusion of the hearing, in writing, and filed with the agency head and the officer.
(g) If the alleged violation is sustained as intentional by the compliance review panel, the agency head shall immediately remove the investigator from any further involvement with the investigation of the officer. Additionally, the agency head shall direct an investigation be initiated against the investigator determined to have intentionally violated the requirements provided under this part for purposes of agency disciplinary action. If that investigation is sustained, the sustained allegations against the investigator shall be forwarded to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission for review as an act of official misconduct or misuse of position.
(2)(a) All the provisions of s. 838.022 shall apply to this part.
(b) The provisions of chapter 120 do not apply to this part.
History.—s. 4, ch. 74-274; s. 35, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 78-291; s. 4, ch. 82-156; s. 4, ch. 93-19; s. 3, ch. 2000-184; s. 8, ch. 2003-158; s. 3, ch. 2009-200; s. 5, ch. 2011-4; s. 6, ch. 2016-151.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: McQuade v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
McQuade v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “The Migliore court concluded that a law enforcement agency's "receipt" of a complaint, as that language was used in section 112.534, Florida Statutes (1981), *494 meant its receipt of a complaint from a person outside the agency.”
City of Miami v. Cosgrove, 516 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “532, Florida Statutes (1983), is injunctive relief as provided in Section 112.534, Florida Statutes (1983), and accordingly reverse the money judgment for the appellee, Michael M.”
Kamenesh v. City of Miami, 772 F. Supp. 583 (S.D. Fla. 1991). “Florida Statutes § 112.534 expressly sets forth the remedies available for violations of § 112.”
City of Hollywood v. Litteral, 446 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “She further argues that since she included her claim for rights as a civil servant in her complaint for injunction pursuant to Section 112.534, Rule 9.100(c) does not apply.”
Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “Thus, where an officer under investigation is being interrogated without benefit of counsel, the agency may be restrained from violating his right to counsel; if an officer is dismissed without notice, the agency can be compelled to provide the proper notice; and, if an officer…”
Bailey v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs, 659 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “Fla. Stat. § 112.534 . Defendants correctly point out that section 112.”
Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “See Diamond 3 Very little evidence was presented about other allegedly similarly situated officers, and the only finding made by the trial court pertaining to other officers was that, “[a]s to other [Gainesville Police Department] officers, between the effective date of the…”
King v. State of Florida, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (N.D. Fla. 2009). “532 is entirely erroneous as Fla. Stat. § 112.534 makes it clear that injunctive relief is the only remedy for violations of § 112.”
Sylvester v. City of Delray Beach, 584 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). “Additionally, section 112.534 provides injunctive relief to officers in cases where the employing agency fails to comply with the requirements of the statute.”
Kelly v. Gill, 544 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). “Section 112.534 specifies that if an agency fails to comply with Part VI, an injured officer may apply to the circuit court for an injunction to compel performance.”
McRae v. Douglas, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). “[6] Even assuming, arguendo, that the Police Officers' Bill of Rights applies to deputy sheriffs/correctional officers such as McRae, several district courts of appeal have held that the Police Officers' Bill of Rights does not create a statutory right for damage suits against…”
Bembanaste v. City of Hollywood, 394 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Despite the fact that appellant’s complaint alleges violations of rights guaranteed by Section 112.”
— 112.534(1) — 4 cases
McQuade v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “The Migliore court concluded that a law enforcement agency's "receipt" of a complaint, as that language was used in section 112.534, Florida Statutes (1981), *494 meant its receipt of a complaint from a person outside the agency.”
Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “See Diamond 3 Very little evidence was presented about other allegedly similarly situated officers, and the only finding made by the trial court pertaining to other officers was that, “[a]s to other [Gainesville Police Department] officers, between the effective date of the…”
Pereira v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 53 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Pereira v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 53 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
— 112.534(1)(d) — 1 case
Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “See Diamond 3 Very little evidence was presented about other allegedly similarly situated officers, and the only finding made by the trial court pertaining to other officers was that, “[a]s to other [Gainesville Police Department] officers, between the effective date of the…”
— 112.534(1)(g) — 1 case
Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “See Diamond 3 Very little evidence was presented about other allegedly similarly situated officers, and the only finding made by the trial court pertaining to other officers was that, “[a]s to other [Gainesville Police Department] officers, between the effective date of the…”
— 112.534(l)(d) — 1 case
Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “See Diamond 3 Very little evidence was presented about other allegedly similarly situated officers, and the only finding made by the trial court pertaining to other officers was that, “[a]s to other [Gainesville Police Department] officers, between the effective date of the…”
— 112.534(l)(g) — 1 case
Fraternal Order of Police, Gator, etc. v. City of Gainesville, Florida, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “See Diamond 3 Very little evidence was presented about other allegedly similarly situated officers, and the only finding made by the trial court pertaining to other officers was that, “[a]s to other [Gainesville Police Department] officers, between the effective date of the…”
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.