Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi
Appellate Alert
__________________________________________________________________
Date issued: 10/21/2014
Editor: Betsy Stupski
Clicking the icon following the number of each case cited below will link you directly to the cited opinion. In addition, full texts of recent slip opinions are available by clicking "VIEW" at the top of your screen, then "SLIP OPINIONS." AGOs are available in the separate AGO database.
Appellate Alert 2014-12
October 21, 2014
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
10/8/14
(on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States)
Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes.
In this case, a public employee testified at a criminal trial and was later fired. He filed a §1983 suit for violation of his First Amendment rights. Initially the Eleventh Circuit found that the testimony was not protected by the First Amendment.
However, in response to Supreme Court direction, the Eleventh Circuit later changed its ruling and found that testimony presented at trial was protected by the First Amendment. “Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes.” The remaining question was whether the supervisor who had fired the Plaintiff was protected by qualified immunity. The Court determined that the law regarding the Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right was not clearly established therefore the super visor was entitled to qualified immunity on his decision to terminate the Plaintiff. The Court also determined that the Plaintiff’s requested relief on reinstatement was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
12-16192
First District Court of Appeal
Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc. 1D14-277
10/13/14
Keeping privacy rights in mind, the trial court in a wrongful death action correctly laid out a multi-step plan to discover and review the data on a decedent’s cell phone.
This case involved a wrongful death suit that resulted from a car accident. The Defendants requested cell phone data after learning that the decedent may have been using her cell phone right before and at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs turned over some data but not all that was requested. Defendants filed a motion to compel which was granted by the trial court after balancing the discovery rights of Defendant with the privacy rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. The Plaintiffs filed a petition to quash the discovery order.
The First District denied the petition to quash discovery. In its analysis, the Court noted that the trial court had carefully balanced discovery rights with privacy. The Court also mentioned that the trial court appropriately laid out strict procedures for allowing an expert to review the decedent’s cell phone.
1D14-277
Davis v. Bay County Jail 1D13-2119
10/13/14
Inmate did not need to allege any facts supporting vicarious liability in order to maintain his §1983 action against warden and physician.
An inmate who was diagnosed with chronic back problems sued the warden and a jail physician pursuant to §1983 for deliberate indifference to his need for medical care. The trial court dismissed his action because he had failed to allege any facts that would demonstrate vicarious liability or respondeat superior.
The First District reversed the order regarding deliberate indifference to medical care. The Court explained that a determination of deliberate indifference contains both an objective and subjective element. The objective element is that a medical condition must exist and the subjective element is whether the official knew or should have known that there was a need for medical attention. The First District concluded that the inmate did not need to allege any facts supporting vicarious liability in order to maintain his §1983 action.
1D13-2119
Second District Court of Appeal
Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach 2D12-5969
10/15/14
The scope of discussions in Commission “shade” meeting went well beyond settlements in pending litigation; therefore, the commission was in violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law.
Anderson sued, arguing that an ordinance passed by the City Commission was void because the Commission did not comply with the notice requirements of the Florida Statutes regarding comprehensive plans. Anderson also alleged that the Commission violated the Florida open meetings law.
In its review the Second District, found that the City had failed to follow the proper notice requirements for the ordinance that they had passed. The Court also found that the Commissioners had participated in several “shade” meetings but that the scope of discussions in those meetings had gone well beyond settlements in pending litigation. The Court concluded city commissioners violated the Florida Open Meetings law when they participated in the “shade” meetings where discussion were not limited to settlement discussions in pending litigation.
2D12-5969
Fourth District Court of Appeal
City of Hollywood v. Arem 4D12-1312 (on motion for rehearing)
10/15/14
“City is not authorized to delegate police power by entering into a contract that allows a private vendor to screen data and decide whether a violation has occurred before sending that data to a traffic infraction enforcement officer to use as the basis for authorizing a citation.”
The Fourth District determined that a city may not outsource to a private vendor the authority to issue a ticket resulting from a red light camera picture. The Court said, “Whether the City has the authority to outsource the issuance of these citations, or to outsource any other statutory duty, must therefore be derived from the plain wording of the statutes. Here, the applicable statutes are clear and unambiguous… In Florida, only law enforcement officers and traffic enforcement officers have the legal authority to issue citations for traffic infractions, which means only law enforcement officers and traffic enforcement officers are entitled to determine who gets prosecuted for a red light violation.”
4D12-1312