Fall 2017
Is Your Office Private (continued) The Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of Florida law is not binding on Florida courts. Indeed, in his dissent, Chief Judge Carnes opined that the panel violated the Eleventh Amendment by overstepping the Court’s bounds by “lectur[ing] state officials on state law and by “tell[ing] the State Attorney ‘how to conform [her] conduct to state law.’” It remains to be seen whether state courts will adopt this Court’s broad interpreta- tion. Until Florida courts weigh in on the topic, law enforcement executives concerned about the recording of their private communications should specifically identify conversations they intend to remain private and should restrict private meetings to only those participants necessary to resolve the issues. There are numer- ous arguments to be made that an express reservation of one’s expectation of privacy is not required and that one-on-one meetings with citizens is not a “public meeting” for the purposes of Florida’s Security of Communications Act. However, we must wait for a Florida court to address these issues before we have binding authority on the matter. Until then, law enforcement officers should use caution when enforcing the criminal penalties for the unlawful interception of oral communications between public officials and the citizenry.
J. David Marsey is a former police officer, investigator and prosecutor and is a partner at the law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell in Tallahas- see, Florida. He defends and advises corporations, government entities and their employees on casualty, employment and constitutional issues throughout the state. For more information, please visit
www.rumberger.com.
23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30
