Cases from cite.case.law:

D AGASTINO, v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 189 So. 3d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . all of the safeguards and protections set forth in Chapter 112, Part VI, and specifically sections 112.532 . . . Section 112.532 identifies the rights granted to law enforcement and correctional, officers while under . . . The rights specifically prodded in section 112.532(1) are as follows: (1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS . . . agree that the rights granted to law enforcement officers and correctional officers .under section 112.532 . . . ‘Section 112.532(6) additionally restricts the investigation to a 180-day period. . . . To this end, section 112.532(1)'of the Flprida Statutes (2007), provides: (1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT . . .

MIAMI- DADE COUNTY v. DADE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, a, 154 So. 3d 373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Harden, 938 So.2d 480, 486 (Fla.2006))); see, e.g„ § 112.532(l)(a), Fla. . . . action, suspension, demotion or dismissal, the interrogation must be under the following conditions”); § 112.532 . . . Stat. (2012) (titled “Notice of disciplinary action”); § 112.532(5), Fla. . . . promotion, transfer, or reassignment” in retaliation for exercising his or her rights under the PBR); § 112.532 . . .

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, GATOR LODGE v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE,, 148 So. 3d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Officer A was subsequently afforded a so-called “Bill of Rights Conference” pursuant to section 112.532 . . . The notice alleged the investigation had exceeded the 180-day period provided in section 112.532(6)(a . . . See § 112.532, Fla. Stat. . . . See §§ 112.532(l)(d), (l)(g), (l)(i), (4)(a), (4)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . See §§ 112.532(l)(a), (l)(b), (l)(c), (l)(e), (l)ffl, Fla. Stat. . . . Because investigations may be continued or reopened under section 112.532(6)(b) if new evidence is discovered . . .

AMADOR, v. TOWN OF PALM BEACH, a B., 517 F. App'x 834 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 112.532(1), are roughly analogous to the firefighter rights in § 112.82. . . . See id. § 112.532(4)(a). The FBR does not contain a similar notice section. . . .

E. WICHER, v. OSCEOLA COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE, E., 503 F. App'x 732 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . §§ 112.532-33 (2010). . . .

McQUADE, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . I would reverse the PERC’s affirmance of the disciplinary action because section 112.532(6)(a), Florida . . . Section 112.532(6), Florida Statutes clearly states: (6) LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS. . . . The provision in section 112.532(3) recognizing that correctional officers may bring suit for damages . . . The Florida Supreme Court held that complaint review boards under section 112.532(2) were not created . . . There, when speculating as to the function of a complaint review board as described in section 112.532 . . . Appellant claims that reinstatement was required under section 112.532(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2008) . . . In response to Appellant’s concern about section 112.532(6)(a), the hearing officer noted that Appellant . . . Dep’t of Corr., 23 F.C.S.R. 41, 42 (2008) (citing Migliore to support the holding that section 112.532 . . . In 1981, section 112.532(2) read as follows: COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS. — A complaint review board shall . . . Section 112.532(6)(a) then sets forth exceptions not applicable to this case. . . .

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, v. RUTHERFORD, a, 51 So. 3d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Police (FOP), appeals a final judgment determining that the confidentiality requirements in sections 112.532 . . . conclude that the Board’s investigations are subject to the confidentiality provisions in sections 112.532 . . . (4)(b), we conclude that the confidentiality rights afforded by section 112.532(4)(b) are broader than . . . Because we conclude that section 112.532(4)(b) requires confidentiality of ongoing Board investigations . . . The legislature did not add the confidentiality language to section 112.532 until 2003. . . .

AVILA v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 29 So. 3d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 112.532(6). . . . Stat. § 112.532, which provides: All law enforcement officers and correctional officers employed by or . . . Stat. § 112.532(6)(a)(2), dealing with the tolling of the 180-day time limitation, not by § 112.533(2 . . . Subsection 112.532(6)(a)(2) does not use the term “active” and instead provides for the tolling of the . . . Even if the presumption on inactivity did generally apply to cases under § 112.532, it has been outweighed . . .

KING, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, G. C. M., 650 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (N.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 112.532 is entirely erroneous as Fla. . . . . § 112.534 makes it clear that injunctive relief is the only remedy for violations of § 112.532. . . .

L. DEMINGS, v. ORANGE COUNTY CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD,, 15 So. 3d 604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . investigating complaints against his deputies that fully complies with the procedures set forth in section 112.532 . . . See § 112.532(1 )(a)-(j), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . Section 112.532 further provides an officer with the right to bring civil suit against complainants for . . . complaints, and establishes a 180-day limitations period to complete investigations of complaints. §§ 112.532 . . .

F. TIMONEY, v. CITY OF MIAMI CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL,, 990 So. 2d 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . The pertinent portions of Chapter 112 are sections 112.531 and 112.532, Florida Statutes (2007). . . . Section 112.532, known as the “Police Officers’ Bill of Rights,” describes the rights and privileges . . . See § 112.532(l)-(6), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . investigation, and it specifically exempts the police chief from internal agency investigation. §§ 112.531-112.532 . . .

RAYNOR, v. FLORIDA STATE LODGE, v., 987 So. 2d 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . ultimately “draw[s] its essence from the contract” because the CBA incorporates by reference section 112.532 . . .

SHARP, IV, v. CITY OF PALATKA,, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . for violations of his rights under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights contained in Section 112.532 . . . The City of Palatka moved to dismiss Plaintiffs claim asserted under Florida Statutes § 112.532 and that . . .

COOPER, v. A. DILLON,, 403 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Stat. ch. 112.532(3) & 770.01 et seq., rather than a restriction which operates to suppress members of . . .

CITY OF LAUDERHILL, a v. RHAMES,, 864 So. 2d 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . They also claimed a violation of the Florida Police Officers’ Bill of Rights, section 112.532(4), Florida . . . substantive due process violation, and the Police Officers' Bill of Rights claim pursuant to section 112.532 . . .

MORELAND, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . II are claims for violations of the Officer’s Bill of Rights, codified at Florida Statutes Chapter 112.532 . . .

ALLOCCO, v. CITY OF CORAL GABLES, A A, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 112.532 and (2) the contract between the City and UM. . . .

HUNT, v. CITY OF MULBERRY, R. Jr. B., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . including but not limited to, the procedures set forth in the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights, Section 112.532 . . .

S. GRITCHEN, v. W. COLLIER,, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . interpreted by State Supreme Court no applicable provision located “Policeman's Bill of Rights," F.S. 112.532 . . . Slat. § 112.532(3). . . .

MELENDRES, v. STATE, 739 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See §§ 112.532-533, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

SAUNDERS, v. HUNTER,, 980 F. Supp. 1236 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . . § 112.532 against Hunter. . . . Count VII; Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights Under Fla.Stat. § 112.532, [whenever a law enforcement . . .

GRICE v. CITY OF KISSIMMEE, 697 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . allegation that the internal investigation was not conducted in conformance with the provisions of section 112.532 . . .

F. BAILEY v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,, 659 So. 2d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . In Cosgrove, the officer sued the City for violations of subsections 112.532(4) and (5), which deal with . . . Florida Statutes, section 112.532(3) provides: Every law enforcement officer or correctional officer . . . The Third District Court of Appeal noted that Cosgrove’s claim focused on a violation of section 112.532 . . . To the extent that Bailey seeks damages for violations of Florida Statutes, section 112.532, summary . . . In any event, case law interpreting section 112.532 uniformly holds that this section creates no cause . . .

D. McRAE, v. DOUGLAS,, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Count II alleged violation of section 112.532, et. seq., Florida Statutes (Police Officers’ Bill of Rights . . . year statute of limitations in section 95.11(3)(f) (as would Count II alleging a violation of section 112.532 . . . — 112.534, Florida Statutes (1989), referred to as the “Police Officers’ Bill of Rights” provides: 112.532 . . . against the employer agency and that the sole remedy against an employer agency for violation of section 112.532 . . .

VENERO, v. CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA,, 830 F. Supp. 1457 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . continued employment under the “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights” contained in Florida Statutes Section 112.532 . . . count, Plaintiff alleges that the City of Tampa denied him his rights under Florida Statutes Section 112.532 . . . Plaintiff alleges that the City Of Tampa violated Florida Statutes Section 112.532 by making threats . . . of the Tampa Code as well as those in the “Police Bill of Rights” contained Florida Statutes Section 112.532 . . . Count III states a claim under Florida Statutes Section 112.532(f) since this provision prohibits threats . . .

A. PEREZ, v. CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA,, 823 F. Supp. 934 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . defamed his personal and business reputation (Count III), and violated his rights under Florida Statute 112.532 . . . BILL OF RIGHTS Defendant, Key West, argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under § 112.532 . . .

SYLVESTER, v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, 584 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Appellant claims damages pursuant to section 112.532, Florida Statutes, known as the “Policeman’s Bill . . . Subsections (3) and (5) provide: 112.532 Law enforcement officers’ and correctional officers’ rights. . . . Cosgrove, the court recognized that the sole remedy against an employer agency for violation of section 112.532 . . . substantive right to injunctive relief, but was enacted solely for the purpose of enforcing section 112.532 . . . Subsection (3) of 112.532 does not create a new civil action. . . .

Z. KAMENESH, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a SIS E. B., 772 F. Supp. 583 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . Moreover, Florida Statutes § 112.532(4), a provision of the “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” requires . . . Florida Statutes § 112.532(5). . . . See Florida Statutes § 112.532(3). Retaliatory action is expressly prohibited by the statute. . . . Florida Statutes § 112.532(5). . . . Florida Statutes § 112.534 expressly sets forth the remedies available for violations of § 112.532. . . .

UJCIC, v. CITY OF APOPKA,, 581 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . failing to take advantage of the opportunity for a hearing before a police review board under section 112.532 . . . administrative remedies by requesting a hearing before a complaint review board as described in section 112.532 . . . Statutes (1989), prescribes certain rights for law enforcement officers while under investigation. §§ 112.532 . . . 431 So.2d 986 (Fla.1983), the supreme court held that complaint review boards authorized by section 112.532 . . . Under section 112.532(2), no record, findings of fact, recommendations of penalty, or any other matter . . .

UNITED STATES v. CAMACHO,, 739 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . . § 112.532(l)(i) which provides that: At the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional . . .

C. KELLY, v. S. GILL,, 544 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . doctrine solely because that individual was denied some limited statutory procedural right {i.e., § 112.532 . . . While it is at least arguable that section 112.532(4) offers at least de minimis procedural rights to . . . Section 112.532(1) deals with rights of officers while under investigation as the result of an outside . . . Section 112.532(2) establishes a review board to consider these outside complaints. . . . Section 112.532(3) gives an officer the right to bring a civil suit against another. . . .

F. BUXTON, v. CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA, E. E., 871 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 112.532 (1982). Count III alleged a pendent state claim of defamation. . . . claim, dismissed the remaining count, violation of the Florida policeman’s bill of rights, Fla.Stat. § 112.532 . . .

CITY OF MIAMI, a v. M. COSGROVE,, 516 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . We conclude that the exclusive remedy for noncompliance with Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1983) . . . Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1983), popularly known as the Policeman’s Bill of Rights, gives to . . . Section 112.532(3) reads: "(3) CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS . . .

A. GRAY, v. Dr. RODRIGUEZ,, 481 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . The claim for relief is made in the complaint under F.S. 112.532(3)(1983), the so-called “Policeman’s . . . F.S. 112.532 was enacted to provide a means for Police Officers to recover damages and also to provide . . . In Mesa, the Supreme Court ruled that F.S. 112.532 passed a constitutional muster both facially and as . . . F.S. 112.532, as interpreted , by the Supreme Court in Mesa, supra, tries to trail blaze a path to protect . . .

MURPHY, v. CITY OF FLAGLER BEACH, H. MURPHY, v. FLAGLER BEACH,, 761 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 112.532 (1979) provides in pertinent part: All law enforcement officers employed by any employing . . .

ORANGE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, v. CITY OF CASSELBERRY, 457 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . discharge or demotion to a panel of law enforcement officers similar to that provided for by Section 112.532 . . .

SYLVESTER, v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, J. L. DRUIEN, v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, J. L., 431 So. 2d 738 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Chief of Police, contending that the action taken against them violated: 1) their rights under Chapter 112.532 . . .

MIGLIORE, v. CITY OF LAUDERHILL,, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983)

. . . The district court in Migliore correctly held that Complaint Review Boards, authorized by section 112.532 . . .

CITY OF UMATILLA, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION,, 422 So. 2d 905 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 112.532, Fla.Stat. (1979): All law enforcement officers employed by any employing agency shall . . . The referenced opinion of the Attorney General also says: Nowhere in that section [112.532(2)] or in . . .

MIGLIORE v. CITY OF LAUDERHILL,, 415 So. 2d 62 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides: (2) COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS. . . . Finally, Subsection 112.532(4), Florida Statutes, mandates that the law enforcement officer faced with . . . review board be available to the officer under such circumstances, to make reference to Subsection 112.532 . . . such a reference is but one additional factor that inclines us to the view that Sections 112.533 and 112.532 . . . Under our interpretation of the purpose of Section 112.532 et seq., appellants would have been entitled . . .

RAGUCCI, v. CITY OF PLANTATION, a E., 407 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Appellant was given a hearing before a three-member Complaint Review Board pursuant to Section 112.532 . . . Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1977) provides: (2) COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS. — A complaint review . . .

SMITH, v. TOWN OF GOLDEN BEACH, L., 403 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . the town failed to act on Smith’s request for review by a Complaint Review Board pursuant to Section 112.532 . . . process of review offered by the statute because he had been interrogated within the meaning of Section 112.532 . . . Florida Statutes (1979) and had not been afforded his right to pre-termination notice under Section 112.532 . . . with some force that the provision granting rights to “all law enforcement officers” under Section 112.532 . . . Because there are no grounds which support Smith’s claim to a review board under Section 112.532 or under . . .

BEMBANASTE, v. CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a D., 394 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . , as a matter, of right, to a pre-termination hearing, and (2) certain rights guaranteed by Section 112.532 . . . Despite the fact that appellant’s complaint alleges violations of rights guaranteed by Section 112.532 . . . appellant’s termination resulted from an attempt to exercise any of the rights set forth in Section 112.532 . . . See Section 112.532(5). . . .

T. WEST, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT,, 371 So. 2d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Petitioner contends that the provisions of F.S. 112.532 require that law enforcement officers be notified . . . The Department admits that F.S. 112.532 is applicable but claims that the request for a hearing under . . . As to the authority and procedures of the Complaint Review Board provided by F.S. 112.532(2) it is apparent . . . Aside from the right of hearing afforded under the provisions of F.S. 112.532, petitioner urges that . . . any event, it can have no affect upon our decision because, as above recited, we find that both F.S. 112.532 . . .

M. ALLISON, v. CITY OF LIVE OAK, S. T. A. O. H. R., 450 F. Supp. 200 (M.D. Fla. 1978)

. . . For example, Section 112.532(4) provides: Notice of disciplinary action — No dismissal, demotion, transfer . . .

H. MESA, v. RODRIGUEZ,, 357 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1978)

. . . Section 112.532(3), Florida Statutes, the section of the statutes under which Mesa brought suit, is contained . . . His complaint could have been reviewed by a Complaint Review Board composed as required by Section 112.532 . . . opportunity to amend his complaint to bring an action for libel against Rodriguez not founded on Section 112.532 . . . HATCHETT, J., dissents. .Now codified as § 112.532(3), Fla.Stat.: (3) CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT . . .

WATERS, v. E. PURDY, 345 So. 2d 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . The following certified question has been presented for our determination: DOES SECTION 112.532(2), FLORIDA . . . In January 1976 Waters demanded the convening of a complaint review board pursuant to Section 112.532 . . . (2), Florida Statutes (1975): “112.532 Law Enforcement officers’ rights “All law enforcement officers . . . After scrutinizing Section 112.532, Florida Statutes (1975) in its entirety, we find that subsection . . . We, therefore, answer the certified question in the negative as Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes . . .

CITY OF HALLANDALE C. v. S. INGLIMA, 346 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . action, and (b) to afford appel-lees a hearing before a Complaint Review Board, pursuant to Section 112.532 . . . Appellees sought in-junctive relief to prohibit appellants from violating Section 112.532(4) and to require . . . In addition, appellees sought damages pursuant to Section 112.532(3). . . . Section 112.532(4), clearly mandates such notice, and appellants violated appellees’ rights by failing . . . Even more importantly, nothing contained in Section 112.532(2) justified the trial court’s entering the . . .

C. EVANS, v. HARDCASTLE,, 339 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . defined “. . . any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof . . . hence, Section 112.532 . . .

S. BARTON v. CITY OF EUSTIS, FLORIDA,, 415 F. Supp. 1355 (M.D. Fla. 1976)

. . . . § 112.532(4) (Supp.1974). . . . In this case there is no settled decisional law that the state statute, Fla.Stat. § 112.532(4), notwithstanding . . . For example, Sections 112.532(1) and (4) provide: All law enforcement officers employed by any employing . . .

SCHRANK, v. BLISS,, 412 F. Supp. 28 (M.D. Fla. 1976)

. . . Sec. 112.532(l)(i) (Supp.1974) provides the right to have an attorney present. . . . . Sec. 112.532(1)-(5) (Supp.1974). . Fla.Stat. Sec. 112.532(4)(Supp.l974). . . .

LONGO v. CITY OF HALLANDALE,, 42 Fla. Supp. 53 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1975)

. . . In any event, the remedies there provided appear cumulative to the rights created by §2(3), §112.532( . . .