Could a Florida police department outsource an officer's internal investigation and interrogation to a private investigator?

Plain-English summary

In a 2008 informal response, the Florida Attorney General's Office found no language in the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights that contemplated outsourcing an officer's internal investigation and interrogation to a private investigator.

The statute applied when an officer was investigated and interrogated by members of the officer's agency about conduct that could lead to discipline, demotion, or dismissal. It required specified locations for interrogation and disclosure of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge, the interrogating officer, and everyone present.

The office did not rule on the validity of investigations already conducted. It offered only informal guidance and suggested that the police department seek legislative clarification.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

For police departments in 2008

The informal response treated the statutory process as an intradepartmental investigation conducted by agency personnel. It found no stated authority for delegating that process to a private investigator.

For officers under internal investigation in 2008

The response described statutory protections governing the location of interrogation and identification of the people conducting and attending it.

For private investigators in 2008

The opinion did not recognize a private investigator as the statutory substitute for agency personnel conducting the internal process.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG invalidate an investigation that had already occurred?
A: No. The office said it was precluded from commenting on the validity of actions already taken.

Q: What kind of investigation did the statute cover?
A: It covered an agency investigation and interrogation that could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal of a law enforcement or correctional officer.

Q: Did the statute expressly authorize private investigators?
A: No. The informal response found nothing in Part VI of Chapter 112 contemplating that delegation.

Q: What did the office suggest next?
A: It suggested seeking legislative clarification.

Background and statutory framework

Section 112.532(1), Florida Statutes, set procedures for agency investigations and interrogations of law enforcement and correctional officers. Section 112.532(1)(c), Florida Statutes, required disclosure of the investigating and interrogating officers and other people present.

The response also cited s. 112.533(1)(a), Fla. Stat., which required law enforcement agencies to establish a system for receiving, investigating, and deciding complaints against officers.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Section 112.532(1), Florida Statutes
• section 112.532(1)(c), Florida Statutes
• s. 112.533(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

Cases:

• Longo v. City of Hallandale
• Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805-806 (Fla. 1944)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/law-enfofficers-bill-of-rights-private-investigator
• Official print view: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8245

Original opinion text

Chief Duncan W. Young

Bay Harbor Islands Police Department

9665 Bay Harbor Terrace

Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154

Dear Chief Young:

You ask whether under Part VI, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, you may outsource the internal investigation of a law enforcement officer within your department.

You state that you have hired a private investigator to conduct such investigations and interrogations. While this office is precluded from commenting on the validity of actions already taken, the following informal comments are offered in an effort to be of assistance.

Part VI of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, is designed to ensure certain rights for law enforcement and correctional officers. As the court stated in Longo v. City of Hallandale,[1] Part VI of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, applies only to "intradepartmental interrogation and investigation, and [has] as its purpose the protection of subordinate officers from 'third degree' tactics by superior officers . . . ." (emphasis supplied by the court)

Section 112.532(1), Florida Statutes, requires that "[w]henever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his or her agency for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal," such interrogation shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by the statute. (e.s.) The statute requires that 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."[2] In addition, section 112.532(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that the law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation "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."[3] (e.s.)

I find nothing in the language of Part VI, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, which contemplates that the internal investigation conducted pursuant to this part may be delegated to a private investigator.[4] You may wish, however, to seek legislative clarification on this matter.

I trust that the above informal advisory comments may be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Joslyn Wilson

Assistant Attorney General

JW/t

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] 42 Fla. Supp. 53, 57 (17th Cir. Broward Co., 1975), affirmed, 331 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1976).

[2] Section 112.532(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

[3] See generally s. 112.533(1)(a), Fla. Stat., requiring a law enforcement agency to establish and put into operation a system for the receipt, investigation, and determination of complaints received by such agency. Such system shall be the procedure for investigating a complaint against a law enforcement and 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. The statute goes on to provide that "[w]hen 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" comply with the requirements set forth therein. Cf. s. 112.532(2), Fla. Stat., providing for complaint review boards stating that the "board members shall be law enforcement officers or correctional officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county."

[4] Cf. Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805-806 (Fla. 1944) (when the controlling law directs how a thing shall be done that is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done in any other way); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. 1952); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976).