BRYAN D. PARK, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bryan Park, a non-probationary police officer, was terminated for allegedly lying about his involvement in an unauthorized call to a psychic hotline. The court quashed the circuit court's decision affirming his termination, holding that the circuit court improperly denied Park his constitutional due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him at his termination hearing.
A non-probationary police officer has a constitutional due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses whose testimony forms the basis for the officer's termination. The circuit court erred by affirming Park's termination without ensuring that Park had the opportunity to exercise this right at a pre-termination hearing.
[1] A public employee terminated for cause has a due process right to a hearing where they can confront and cross-examine witnesses against them.
[2] A hearing officer reviewing an employee termination decision must allow the employee to confront and cross-examine witnesses if the termination decision was based on witn…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a police officer who is not a probationary or at will employee has a right to a due process hearing before his or her termination becomes final”
Establishes the baseline constitutional right of non-probationary officers to a termination hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe police chief discovered a charge for a call to a psychic hotline on the department's telephone bill. When questioned, Park denied knowledge of the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Petitioner Bryant Park seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court acting in its review capacity. We grant the petition and quash the order under review.
The police chief of the City of West Melbourne discovered that the department’s telephone bill contained a charge for a call to a “psychic hotline.” The chief questioned Park, who had been on duty the night the call was made, but Park disclaimed any knowledge of the call. An other officer who had been on duty that night, having heard of the chiefs concern, contacted the chief and stated that he had made the call. He stated that he had thought that no charges would be incurred if the call were three minutes or less, and that Park had assisted him by timing the call to three minutes. The chief again spoke to Park, who again denied knowledge of the call. The chief determined that Park had» lied and recommended his discharge to the city manager. The city manager reviewed the internal investigation report, and the transcripts of the interviews with the officers, and concurred with the chief.
Park’s termination letter informed him that he was entitled to a public evidentiary hearing before a hearing officer chosen by the city and empowered to set aside, modify or affirm the decision. The letter stated that the issue at such a hearing would be “whether the City’s decision was arbitrary, pretextual or for improper motive.” Park chose to have a hearing, at which both parties presented evidence. The hearing officer weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and determined that the city had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Park was fired for “just cause.” The city successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the circuit court. The circuit court determined that the hearing officer incorrectly afforded a de novo hearing when, instead, it should have afforded an appeal type proceeding, without re-determining the fact found by the city — that Park had lied.
We quash the decision because it effectively denies Park due process. In Grice v. City of Kissimmee, 697 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), this court held that a police officer who is not a probationary or at will employee has a right to a due process hearing before his or her termination becomes final. Further, we held that when the termination is based on the testimony of witnesses other than the terminated officer, as a matter of constitutional due process, the officer must be permitted to confront and cross-examine the witness. In the instant case, since there had been only an internal investigation plus a recommendation from the chief to the city manager that Park be fired, and no pre-termination hearing during which Park could confront the witnesses against him, the circuit court decision denies Park the due process right to confront the witnesses against him.
Certiorari GRANTED; order QUASHED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryon D. Park v. City OF W. Melbourne, 927 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…efore his termination is final, and “when the termination is based on the testimony of witnesses ... as a matter of constitutional due process, the officer must be permitted to confront and cross-examine the witness.” Park v. City of West Melbourne, 769 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (Park I). This Court reasoned that since Park was not afforded a hearing where he could confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him before his termination became final, Park was denied procedural due process. Id. P…1 / 2
-
Park v. City OF W. Melbourne, 999 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…rt’s order entering judgment in favor of the City of West Melbourne, Florida [“City”] in his suit for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. This case has been before this court on three prior occasions: Park v. City of West Melbourne, 769 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) [“Park /”]; Park v. Ryan, 821 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) [“Park 7/”]; and Park v. City of West Melbourne, 927 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) [“Park IIP’]. In essence, it concerns the decision of the City to discharge Park…
-
Smith v. The Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty. (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Grice v. City OF Kissimmee & Kissimmee Police Dep't, 697 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)