Title: Thomas Solomos v. Sheriff Ken Jenne

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC01-510
____________
THOMAS SOLOMOS, et al., 
Petitioners,
vs.
SHERIFF KEN JENNE, etc.,
Respondent.
[May 30, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted for review the decision of the Fourth District Court of
Appeal in Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), which expressly
declared a state statute valid.  Upon further consideration, we find that review was
improvidently granted.  Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and HARDING, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
1.  Section 951.033 sets forth in pertinent part:
(1) The Legislature finds that there is an urgent need to alleviate
the increasing financial burdens on local subdivisions of the state
caused by the expenses of incarcerating prisoners.  In addition to a
prisoner's cash account on deposit in local detention facilities, many
prisoners have sources of income and assets outside of the facility,
which may include bank accounts, inheritances, real estate, social
security payments, veteran's payments, and other types of financial
resources.
(2) The local detention facility shall determine the financial
status of prisoners for the purpose of paying from their income and
assets all or a fair portion of their daily subsistence costs.  In
determining the financial status of prisoners, any income exempt by
state or federal law shall be excluded.  Consideration shall be given to
the prisoner's ability to pay, the liability or potential liability of the
prisoner to the victim or guardian or the estate of the victim, and his or
her dependents.
(3) The chief correctional officer of a local subdivision may
direct a prisoner to pay for all or a fair portion of daily subsistence
costs.  A prisoner is entitled to reasonable advance notice of the
assessment and shall be afforded an opportunity to present reasons for
opposition to the assessment.
-2-
PARIENTE, J., dissenting.
I dissent from the discharge of jurisdiction.  I agree with the Fourth District
Court of Appeal that section 951.033, Florida Statutes (2001), which requires
prisoners to pay for "all or a fair portion of their daily subsistence costs," is
constitutional on its face.  See Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953, 957 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000).1  However, I disagree with the Fourth District that the statute is
-3-
constitutional as applied under the sheriff's Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP")
1.2.12, which provides that inmates will have deducted from their cash account held
by the sheriff a one-time fee of ten dollars to defray the costs of uniforms and a daily
subsistence fee of two dollars.  See Solomos, 776 So. 2d at 957.  Thus, I would
retain jurisdiction and hold that the statute is unconstitutional as applied under the
SOP because it violates the inmates' procedural due process rights by taking money
before assessing the inmates' financial status and by placing the onus on the inmates
to request a hearing to obtain the money back.  In addition,  although the SOP may
give the inmates notice of the two dollar per day subsistence charge, the SOP does
not give clear notice of the inmates' right to contest the attachment of this charge to
the inmates' accounts.  
I recognize that section 951.033 allows local detention facilities flexibility in
both determining inmates' financial status, and in collecting from these inmates a
portion of the local detention facilities' costs.  I also recognize that with a transient
jail population, the sheriff desires to simplify the administration of the SOP by
targeting only inmates' accounts as a basis for determining financial status and as a
source of collection.  However, in my view, the SOP violates the inmates'
procedural due process rights.  Thus, I would retain jurisdiction and conclude that
section 951.033, Florida Statutes is unconstitutional as applied under SOP 1.2.12. 
-4-
SHAW, J., concurs.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Statutory Validity
Fourth District - Case No. 4D00-600 
(Broward County)
Steven Wisotsky, Miami, Florida; and Gary Kollin, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Petitioners
Bruce W. Jolly of Purdy, Jolly & Giuffreda, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent