1.
HERO COP BECOMES LAWYER:
Most readers know the story of Jim O’Hara, a Plantation
Department Detective who rushed into a burning house in response to an
emergency call. He nearly died, suffering burns on 80% of his body. He
was hospitalized for six months, spent another three months in rehab and
endured 25 operations over the next three years. Most doctors did not believe
O’Hara would survive, but he proved them wrong. Now, at 41, having
received his law degree cum laude last December, O’Hara has embarked
on a new career as an attorney. His specialty? Personal Injury. “As
a police officer, I wanted to help people. In particular, those who could
not help themselves. As a personal injury attorney, I have another opportunity
to help people, and to fight for what has been taken from them.” O’Hara
was quoted in a touching story in the Florida Bar News.
2. DISMISSAL
OF DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ SUIT AGAINST SHERIFF FOR FIRST AMENDMENT
AND DUE PROCESS CLAIMS AFFIRMED, BUT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND FORMER:
Deputy Sheriffs who were transferred by newly-elected Sheriff from
their probationary lieutenancies back to their previous positions sued
him, alleging First Amendment and due process clause violations. Their
support for the incumbent Sheriff, who was defeated, only demonstrated
loyalty and support and were nothing more than bare statements of support
for a candidate. Thus, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed dismissal of First Amendment claim, but did grant
leave to amend (even though leave to amend was never sought in the
district court below). The deputies also claimed violations of (a)
substantive due process, (b) property interest and (c) liberty interest.
In affirming dismissal of these claims with prejudice, the appellate
court held (a) employment rights are state-created and are not fundamental
rights created by the constitution, so they do not enjoy substantive
due process protection; (b) as a matter of law, the deputies were probationary
employees, having no right to rank as lieutenants until, at least,
they had served their one-year probationary period; and (c) the Sheriff’s
transferring the deputies back to their previous rank during the probationary
period does not provide the additional loss of tangible interest required
for a liberty interest claim. Silva v. Bieluch, Case No. 01-15721 (U.S.
11th Cir., November 25, 2003).
|
