CEO 78-36 -- June 13, 1978

MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICER WITH AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE OR AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF INFORMATION, CONTRABAND, OR STOLEN PROPERTY

APPLICABILITY OF STATUTORY FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE LAW

To: James W. York, Chief of Police, Orlando

Prepared by: Phil Claypool

SUMMARY:

The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees provides that each "local officer" shall file financial disclosure annually. Section 112.3145(2)(b), F. S. 1977. The term "local officer" is defined to include "a purchasing agent having the authority to make any purchase exceeding $100 for any political subdivision of the state or any entity thereof." Section 112.3145(1)(a)3., F. S. 1977. Where all sworn police officers within a municipality are authorized to request investigative funds to acquire evidence for criminal prosecution and where such expenditures must be approved by a bureau commander before it is released or, in some cases, reimbursed, such authority is deemed to be analogous to requisitions for purchases rather than to actual purchasing authority. See CEO's 75-115, 75-172, and 77-73. Such officers therefore are not deemed to constitute purchasing agents so as to become local officers subject to financial disclosure. However, the bureau commanders who actually release or authorize reimbursement of such funds are deemed to be purchasing agents and thus meet the definition of "local officer" so as to be subject to the requirement of filing financial disclosure annually.

QUESTIONS:

1. Does a municipal police officer with authority to request funds to procure information from confidential informants, or to buy contraband drugs or stolen property, constitute a "local officer" for purposes of filing financial disclosure annually?

2. Does a municipal police officer with authority to approve the expenditure of funds to procure information, or to buy contraband drugs or stolen property, constitute a "local officer" for purposes of filing financial disclosure annually?

Question 1 is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry you advise that the Orlando Police Department has available and from time to time expends public funds to procure information from confidential informants and to buy contraband drugs or stolen property. You also advise that all sworn police officers are authorized to request investigative funds from bureau commanders, who are deputy chiefs of police who disburse these funds when necessary to acquire evidence for criminal prosecution and maintain records of disbursements. In addition, you advise that while approval for these types of expenditures is not always obtained prior to a purchase because of the exigencies of police work, the expenditure must be approved by a bureau commander before it can be reimbursed from department funds.

a purchasing agent having the authority to make any purchase exceeding $100 for any political subdivision of the state or any entity thereof. [Section 112.3145(1)(a)3., F. S. 1977.]

Admittedly, the transactions under consideration here are not the usual types of purchases made by an entity of a political subdivision. However, we are of the opinion that the fact that these transactions are unusual is not sufficient to take them out of the operation of the above-cited statute. These types of purchases do take place in the ordinary, day-to-day business of the police department, and the statute encompasses any purchase exceeding $100 made for a city department.

Nevertheless, in order to remain consistent with previous advisory opinions that we have issued, we must find that police officers within your department are not "purchasing agents." We have previously advised that the power to make requisitions or requests for purchases is advisory in nature and that persons with that authority are not purchasing agents. Commission on Ethics Opinions 75-115, 75-172, and 77-73. Here, police officers within the department merely request investigative funds from a bureau commander to make purchases; it is the bureau commander who authorizes the expenditure of department funds. The fact that a police officer may make a purchase without prior approval for which he may be reimbursed later does not appear to be material because the approval of a bureau commander still is required for reimbursement.

Accordingly, we find that a municipal police officer with the authority to request funds to procure information from confidential informants or to buy contraband drugs or stolen property does not constitute a "local officer" and therefore is not required to file financial disclosure under s. 112.3145, F. S.

Question 2 is answered in the affirmative.

In a telephone conversation with our staff you advise that of the four departmental bureau commanders, or deputy chiefs of police, only two have the authority to approve the use or expenditure of investigative funds as the duties of the other two are only administrative in nature. In accordance with the rationale of our answer to your first question, we find that the two bureau commanders who have the authority to approve the expenditure of investigative funds exceeding $100 per purchase are purchasing agents and thus "local officers" subject to the requirement of filing financial disclosure annually under s. 112.3145, F. S.