Filing # 75474961 E-Filed 07/25/2018 10:58:25 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50-2018-CF-003875-AXXX

Plaintiff,
v.

SUSAN INCE HAYNIE,

Defendant.
___________________________/

MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED INFORMATION

Susan Haynie (“Haynie”), through undersigned counsel pursuant to Rule 3.190 and Rule

3.140, Fla.R.Cr.P., moves to dismiss the July 13, 2018 Amended Information filed in the above

styled case. As grounds, Haynie submits the following:

INTRODUCTION

The State of Florida filed an Amended Information on July 13, 2018 charging Haynie, the

elected Mayor of Boca Raton, Florida, with three counts of Official Misconduct (Counts 1-3) in

violation of Florida Statute §838.022, one count of Perjury in an Official Proceeding (Count 4),

in violation of Florida Statute §837.02(1) and three counts alleging violation of the Palm Beach

County Code of Ethics (Counts 5-7), in violation of P.B.C.O.E. Section 2-443(a) ( Misuse of

Public Office or Employment), Section 2-443(b) (Corrupt Misuse of Official Position) and

Section 2-443(c) (Failure to Disclose Voting Conflicts).

The July 13, 2018 Amended Information alleges the same seven offenses set forth in the

April 24, 2018 Information filed in this Court. Haynie, on May 18, 2018, prior to arraignment,

moved to dismiss each of the seven counts set forth in the April 24, 2018 Information. The

Amended Information effectively concedes legal issues raised in Haynie’s Motion to Dismiss

relating to five of the seven counts in the April 24, 2018 Information. Specifically, Count One
and Two of the Amended Information now allege a “corrupt intent to obtain a benefit…or cause

harm to another” as opposed to the averment of “knowingly and intentionally obtaining a

benefit…or causing harm,” which had been alleged in the original Information. Counts Five

through Seven of the Amended Information allege the specific intent of “willful” conduct as

opposed to the failure to allege a mens rea in those three counts of the original Information. The

Amended Information fails to correct defects in Counts Three and Four of the original

Information. Instead, the State of Florida, on July 13, 2018, filed a Response to Haynie’s May

18, 2018 Motion to Dismiss, in which the State asserts that those counts (Three and Four)

should survive Haynie’s dismissal motion.

The Court conducted a case disposition hearing on June 19, 2018 at which time a

subsequent hearing was set for July 26, 2018. Haynie has not received notice of an Arraignment

on the Amended Information. The electronic docket of the Clerk of this Court lists July 26, 2018

as the date for the Arraignment on the Amended Information. Haynie will file her written plea of

not guilty to the Amended Information prior to the July 26, 2018 hearing. Haynie will request

that this Court set an expeditious hearing on the instant Motion to Dismiss.

Both the United States and Florida Constitutions require that a criminal defendant be

provided with sufficient notice of the charges filed against them so that a defendant can properly

defend themselves. The Constitutional requirement of proper notice has been defined by both

federal and state courts. In Florida, rules of criminal procedure have established the contours of

the notice requirement and the minimum standards that need to be satisfied in a charging

document, See Rule 3.140 Fla.R.Cr.P. In order to properly raise and preserve issues relating to

charging document deficiencies, a criminal defendant must raise objections prior to the time of

Arraignment, See Rule 3.190, Fla.R.Cr.P. Defects and variances in charging documents result

2
in dismissal when the court determines that the charging document “is so vague, indistinct, and

indefinite, as to mislead the accused and embarrass him or her in the preparation of a defense or

expose the accused after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for

the same offense” Rule 3.140 (o), Fla.R.Cr.P.

Defendants in Florida criminal cases, as part of their defense, are permitted to seek

dismissal of charges prior to trial when “there are no material facts and the undisputed facts do

not establish a prima facie case of guilt against a defendant.” Rule 3.190 (c)(4), Fla.R.Cr.P. In

order to be able to properly employ Rule 3.190 (c)(4), defendants need to know what charges and

allegations they are being charged with by the State of Florida. In most simplistic terms, it is

impossible for a defendant to properly defend themselves if the State fails to properly identify

the actual criminal activity the State alleges that a defendant has committed.

Adherence to the constitutionally mandated rules of notice are even more significant in

cases involving pubic officials in which expansive publicity has been generated, and in Haynie’s

case, a smorgasbord of unfounded assertions. It is disconcerting that that State, in its Amended

Information, has presented a pleading which fails to comply with Constitutional requirements.

Whether the deficiencies in the Amended Information are aberrational, or are part of additional

due process issues, will be determined during discovery in this case. While the efficacy of the

decision to file charges against Haynie in the middle of Haynie’s campaign for a Palm Beach

County Commission seat, combined with the inevitable accompanying “perp walk,” are at this

point a political issue, Haynie is understandably aware of the potential legal significance of those

activities in the defense of her case.

3
 Haynie’s Motion to Dismiss will address each of the defects in the Amended Information

in a count by count submission. The Amended Information is attached as Exhibit “A” to this

application.

COUNT ONE

Count One of the Amended Information alleges a violation of Fla. Stat. §838.022 on or

about June 15, 2015. The 2015 version of Fla. Stat. §838.022 is attached to this Motion to

Dismiss as Exhibit “B.” The operative Standard Florida Jury Instruction (19.7) at the time of the

alleged “Official Misconduct” offense identifies three elements of the offense:

1. The defendant was a public servant.

2. While a public servant the defendant,

a. Falsified, caused another to falsify an official record or official document.

b. Concealed, covered up, destroyed, mutilated, altered an official record or

official document, or caused another person to perform such an act.

c. Obstructed, delayed, prevented the communication of the information

relating to the commission of a felony that directly involved or affected

the public agency, or entity served by the defendant.

3. The defendant did so with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for a person or cause

harm to another.

Review of Count One of the Amended Information reveals that the State failed to allege

that Haynie was a public servant at the time of the alleged offense. The failure of the State to

allege that Haynie was a public servant, and that while a public servant, committed the acts

described in Count One of the Amended Information constitutes a failure to allege two of the

three essential elements required to establish a violation of Fla. Stat. §838.022. The failure to

4
allege two of the three essential elements violates the requirement of Rule 3.140 (d) Fla.R.Cr.P.,

which mandates that “each count of an Information on which the defendant is to be tried shall

allege the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Since Count One of the Amended

Information fails to allege a violation of Fla. Stat. §838.022, or any other Florida statute, Count

One of the Amended Information must be dismissed.

In addition to failing to allege that Haynie was a “public servant” and while a public

servant Haynie committed certain acts, Count One of the Amended Information fails to

specifically allege which acts that Haynie allegedly committed that would constitute the second

essential element of Fla. Stat. §838.022 as defined by Standard Jury Instruction 19.7. Instead,

the Amended Information merely regurgitates all of the potential acts that could constitute the

second essential element of Fla. Stat. §838.022. Without designation in Count One of the

Amended Information as to which of the three sections of the second element of the offense the

State seeks to pursue, Haynie is forced to guess which of the three sections she must defend.

Being forced to guess which section of a statute a defendant needs to prepare a defense is totally

inappropriate and effectively misleading. Additionally, including allegations in an Amended

Information that the State has no proof to support and does not intend to prove at trial is

prejudicial to Haynie as it creates the false impression that the State has additional evidence of

alleged wrongdoing. Including unsupported allegations in an Amended Information increases

the likelihood of jury confusion and would force the Court to require the jury to unnecessarily

deliberate and reach “special” verdicts. Accordingly, Count One of the Amended Information

must be dismissed with the admonition that any amendment to Count One of the Amended

Information can only include the actual allegations that the State intends to prove.

5
 Count One of the Amended Information is further defective since its fails to identify

which “benefit” Haynie was supposedly “corruptly” seeking to obtain for herself or any other

person. Likewise, Count One fails to identify the “official record” or “official document” that

Haynie allegedly falsified, concealed, covered up, destroyed, mutilated or altered. Finally, Count

One of the Amended Information fails to identify the obstruction, delay or prevention of

information relating to the commission of an unspecified felony affecting an undescribed public

agency or public entity served by Haynie. The failure of the Amended Information to identify

any of these required components of the essential element of the offense exposes Haynie to

substantial danger that she would face a new prosecution for the same offense even after

acquittal. The State’s failure to properly identify any of the above referenced essential elements

requires dismissal of Count One of the Amended Information.

COUNT TWO

Count Two of the Amended Information mirrors Count One of the Amended

Information, with the exception that Count Two alleges that the offense occurred on June 10,

2016. All of the arguments supporting dismissal of Count One of the Amended Information are

applicable to dismissal of Count Two of the Amended Information. Haynie incorporates all of

the grounds and arguments set forth relating to dismissal of Count One of the Amended

Information to the dismissal of Count Two of the Amended Information.

COUNT THREE

Count Three of the Amended Information alleges a violation of Fla. Stat. §838.022 that

occurred on or about January 4, 2017. Since Fla. Stat. §838.022 was amended in 2016, the

amended statute applies to Count Three of the Amended Information. Attached to this Motion to

Dismiss, as Exhibit “C” is the 2016 amended Fla. Stat. 838.022. Based upon the amendment to

6
838.022, the Standard Jury Instruction was likewise revised. The amended 19.7 (Official

Misconduct) Jury Instruction requires the state to prove two essential elements.

1. The defendant was a public servant or a public contractor.

2. While a public servant or public contractor the defendant knowingly and

intentionally obtained a benefit for a person or caused unlawful harm to another

by

a. Falsifying or causing another person to falsify an official record or official

document.

b. Concealing, covering up, destroying, mutilating, altering an official record

or document except as authorized by law or contract or causing another

person to perform such an act.

c. Obstructing, delaying, preventing the communication of information

relating to the commission of a felony that directly involved or affected

the government entity served by the defendant.

Unlike Counts One and Two of the Amended Information, the State does allege in Count

Three of the Amended Information that Haynie was a “public servant” as required in the first

essential element necessary to prove a violation of Fla. Stat. §838.022. However, similar to

Count One and Count Two of the Amended Information, the State fails to identify the “benefit”

obtained, the “official record” or “official document” allegedly falsified, the “official record” or

“official document” that was allegedly concealed, covered up, destroyed, mutilated or altered, or

the information relating to the commission of a felony that was obstructed, delayed or prevented.

The failure of the State to properly identify these components of the second essential element of

Count Three of the Amended Information t creates a “vague, indistinct and indefinite” allegation

7
that is not only “misleading”, but also exposes Haynie to the “embarrassment” and “substantial

danger” described in Rule 3.140 (o).

Count Three of the Amended Complaint fails to identify which of the three potential

sections of essential element two of Fla. Stat. §838.022, as identified in Florida standard Jury

Instruction 19.7, supra., are actually being alleged against Haynie. Instead, all three of the

potential sections of essential element two are included within Count Three of the Amended

Information. Haynie should not be forced to guess which of the three sections she needs to

prepare a defense, nor should be forced to guess which of the three sections she will need to

defend against at trial. Count Three of the Amended Information should be dismissed with leave

for the State to file an amended Count Three that complies with the requirements of Rule 3.140,

Fla.R.Cr.P.

COUNT FOUR

Count Four of the Amended Information alleges a violation of Fla. Stat. §837.02(1),

Perjury in an Official Proceeding. Florida Standard Jury Instruction “18.1” identifies the five

essential elements necessary to establish a violation of Fla. Stat. §837.02.

1. The defendant took an oath in an official proceeding.

2. The oath was made to a person allegedly administering the oath who was in an

official capacity.

3. Defendant, while under an oath, made the statement (read from charge).

4. The statement was false.

5. The defendant did not believe the statement when she made it.

Count Four of the Amended Information fails to identify any false statement allegedly

made by Haynie. Instead, Count Four of the Amended Information alleges that Haynie “…did

8
make a false statement to wit: made statements regarding Community Reliance LLC, computer

software, surveillance cameras, primary sources of income, which she did not believe to be true

….” Count Four of the Amended Information provides a textbook example of a Rule 3.140(o)

Fla.R.Cr.P. basis to dismiss an Information that is “vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead

the accused and embarrass her in the preparation of a defense or expose the accused after

conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.”

Effectively, Haynie is charged in Count Four of the Amended Information with perjury, but not

being told what statement(s) the State is alleging that Haynie made was false. Without the actual

alleged false statement Haynie cannot file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4).

Without the allegation of a statement, Haynie’s jury cannot be instructed which statement they

need to be considering during their deliberation concerning Count Four of the Amended

Information. Had the Florida perjury statute, or the Standard Jury Instruction relating to the

Florida perjury statute, only required the subject matter of an alleged false statement to be

alleged or proved, as opposed to the false statement itself, there is no doubt that both the statute

and jury instruction would be written in that manner. Haynie respectfully requests that Count

Four of the Amended Information be dismissed and that the State be instructed in any Amended

Information to identify the statement in the Information that the State intends to prove was

perjurious.

COUNTS FIVE THROUGH SEVEN

Counts Five through Seven of the Amended Information each allege a violation of the

Palm Beach County Code of Ethics. Counts Five, Six and Seven each allege violations “from

September 1, 2016 through June 14, 2017”. However, none of the Palm Beach County Code of

Ethics sections cited in the Amended Information appear to be offenses that are “continuing

9
offenses” that could be continued through a ten month period of time. However, since Counts

Five, Six and Seven of the Amended Information fail to properly notice Haynie concerning what

conduct is allegedly being included within the particular count, Haynie cannot determine

whether a “continuing offense” is properly alleged. What is absolutely clear, as will be

discussed infra, is the failure of each of the three counts to satisfy basic due process

requirements, as well as, the standards set forth in Rule 3.140 (o), Fla.R.Cr.P. Dismissal of the

three counts is the only appropriate remedy. An order of dismissal would permit the State to draft

an Information that meets constitutional standards, if possible.

More specifically, Count Five of the Amended Information alleges that Haynie did

“willfully use her official position or office, or took or failed to take any action, or influenced

others to take or fail to take any action, in a manner which she knew or should have known with

the exercise of reasonable care would result in a specific financial benefit … for herself ,her

spouse, her or her spouse’s outside business or employer, or a customer or client of hers or her

outside business or employer.” Count Five fails to identify what “official action” Haynie

allegedly “willfully” took, nor the specific “financial benefit” which allegedly resulted from the

alleged “official action”. Without identification of either the “official action” or the “financial

benefit” Haynie cannot properly prepare a defense, or properly defend herself at trial. Haynie’s

jury cannot possibly know what “official action” Haynie allegedly willfully engaged in, or what

“financial benefit” Haynie received as an alleged quid pro quo from the alleged willful official

action. A count in an Information that leaves both the defendant and the jury guessing what the

defendant is actually alleged to have done does not come close to satisfying fundamental due

process, as well as the requirements of Rule 3.140 (o), Fed.R.Cr.P.

10
 Count Six of the Amended Information suffers from the same “vague, indistinct and

indefinite “infirmity” described as to Count Five of the Amended Information. In Count Six of

the Amended Information Haynie is alleged to have “willfully used her official position or office

or any property or resource … to corruptly secure, or attempt to secure a special privilege,

benefit, or exemption for herself or others.” Count Six of the Amended Information fails to

provide any identification of what Haynie allegedly willfully did to “corruptly secure” the

unidentified alleged “special privilege, benefit or exemption.” No defendant should be placed in

the position of speculating what the prosecution is alleging that the defendant did to commit the

alleged offense. Unfortunately, Count Six of the Amended Information does just that and

therefore must be dismissed.

Count Seven of the Amended Information continues the prosecution by omission

scenario previously described. Count Seven of the Amended Information alleges that Haynie

“willfully failed to abstain from voting on and not participating in any matter … that resulted in a

special financial benefit ….” Count Seven of the Amended Information fails to identify the

“voting matter” or the “special financial benefit” that allegedly constitute a violation of the Palm

Beach Code of Ethics. Haynie cannot prepare to defend and actually defend against “vague,

indistinct and indefinite” allegations. Nor can Haynie have any comfort that she would not face

a subsequent prosecution for the same offense, even if acquitted at trial, concerning Count Seven

of the Amended Information. Accordingly, Count Seven of the Amended Information must be

dismissed.

CONCLUSION

There is no public official exception to due process protections provided to any person

accused of a criminal offense. The fact that Haynie has now been required to file two

11
applications to this Court, merely to find out what the actual allegations are against her is

particularly disappointing. Haynie respectfully requests that Haynie’s Motion to Dismiss be

Granted and the State of Florida be ordered to comply with the fundamental notice requirements

for criminal information defined in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Wherefore, SUSAN INCE HAYNIE, requests that this Motion to Dismiss each count of

the Amended Information be Granted.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of

Court using the Florida E-Filing Portal and that a true and correct copy of this document has

been served electronically to the Office of the State Attorney, 401 N. Dixie Highway, West Palm

Beach, Florida 33401 on this 25th day of July, 2018.

/s/ BRUCE A. ZIMET, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0225053

BRUCE A. ZIMET, P.A.

One Clearlake Centre
250 N. Australian Avenue
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: (561) 508-7741
Tel: (954) 764-7081
Fax: (954) 760-4421
Email: BAZ@BruceAZimetLaw.com

12
 EXHIBIT "A"

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA

vs.

SUSAN INCE HAYNIE, W/F, 09/21/1955, 157-38-4927

CASE NO. 18CF003875
CRIMINAL DIVISION W

AMENDED INFORMATION FOR:

1)
2)
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
.,
3)
4)
5)
6)
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
PERJURY (OFFICIAL PROCEEDING)
MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT
CORRUPT MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION
,-rn
7) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE VOTING CONFLICTS r-1
-.. ..... ,,..,1~

In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida:

DAVID ARONBERG, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County,
Florida, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that:

COUNT 1: SUSAN INCE HAYNIE on or about June 15, 2015 , in the County of Palm Beach
and State of Florida, did unlawfully, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for herself or another
or caused unlawful harm to another, falsify or caused another to falsify any official record or
official document; to conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official
document or cause another person to perform such an act; or obstruct, delay, or prevent the
communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that directly involves or
affects the public agency or public entity served by her, contrary to Florida Statute 838.022(1)
and (3). (3 DEG FEL)

COUNT 2: SUSAN INCE HAYNIE on or about June 10, 2016, in the County of Palm Beach
and State of Florida, did unlawfully, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for herself or another
or caused unlawful harm to another, falsify or caused another to falsify any official record or
•

official document; to conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official
document or cause another person to perform such an act; or obstruct, delay, or prevent the
communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that directly involves or
affects the public agency or public entity served by her, contrary to Florida Statute 838.022(1)
and (3). (3 DEG FEL)

COUNT 3: SUSAN INCE HAYNIE on or about January 4, 2017, in the County of Palm Beach
and State of Florida, did, knowingly and intentionally obtain a benefit for herself or another or
caused unlawful harm to another by, falsifying or causing another to falsify any official record or
official document; or did conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or
official document or did cause another person to perform such an act; or obstruct, delay, or
prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that directly
involves or affects the government entity served by her and SUSAN INCE HAYNIE was a
public servant or public contractor, contrary to Florida Statute 838.022(1) and (3). (3 DEG FEL)

COUNT 4: SUSAN IN CE HAYNIE on or about January 17, 2018, in the County of Palm Beach
and State of Florida, did make a false statement to wit: made false statements regarding
Community Reliance LLC, Computer Golf Software, surveillance cameras, primary sources of
income, and secondary sources of income, which she did not believe to be true, under oath in an
official proceeding in regard to any material matter, contrary to Florida Statute 837.02(1). (3
DEG FEL)

COUNT 5: SUSAN INCE HAYNIE From September 1, 2016, through June 14, 2017, in the
County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did willfully use her official position or office, or
took or failed to take any action, or influenced others to take or fail to take any action, in a
manner which she knew or should have known with the exercise of reasonable care would result
in a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly situated members of the general public,
for herself, her spouse, her or her spouse's outside business or employer, or a customer or client
of hers or her outside business or employer, contrary to Florida Statute 125.69(1) and Palm
Beach County Code, Section 2-443(a), Article XIII. (1 DEG MISD)

COUNT 6: SUSAN INCE HAYNIE From September 1, 2016, through June 14, 2017, in the
County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did willfully use her official position or office or any
property or resource which may be within his or her trust to corruptly secure or attempt to secure
a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for herself or others, contrary to Florida Statute
125.69(1) and Palm Beach County Code, Section 2-443(b), Article XIII. (1 DEG MISD)

COUNT 7: SUSAN INCE HAYNIE From September 1, 2016, through about June 14, 2017, in
the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, willfully failed to abstain from voting on and not
participating in any matter before her board, council, or commission, that resulted in a special
financial benefit for herself, her spouse, her or her spouse's outside business or employer, or a
customer or client of hers or her outside business or employer, contrary to Florida Statute
125.69(1) and Palm Beach County Code, Section 2-443(c), Article XIII. (I DEG MISD)

DAYID ARONBERG
STATE ATTORNEY

By:

Assistant State Attorney

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Appeared before me, BRIAN L. FERNANDES, Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach
County, Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as
set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and
which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in
good faith, and certifies that testimony under oath has been received from the material witness or
witnesses for the offense.

Sworn to and subscribed to before me this U day of July, 2018.

NfilRY
~~v Pu~
r~~oricta E. MCCARJH'f
.~~"* MVCOMMISS!ONIFF171011
'- ,.. EXP!RES: Apr!! 4, 2020
~ ~
FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: ~oFf\.o~ llolldldTllNMgl!Nllilr..,._
1) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT SAGES :2607 FDLE REC N0:5566
2) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT SAGES:2607 FDLE REC N0:5566
3) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT SAGES:2607 FDLE REC N0:5566
4) PERJURY (official proceeding) SAGES:5003 FDLE REC N0:3111
5) MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT SAGES:8500 FDLE REC N0:3376
6) CORRUPT MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION SAGES:8500 FDLE REC N0:3376
7) CORRUPT MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION SAGES:8500 FDLE REC N0:3376

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(2), the filer of this court
record (Information) indicates that confidential information is included within the
document bein filed; to wit: Social Securi Number, 119.0714.
Chapter 838 Section 022 - 2015 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate https://www.tlsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/838.022

The Florida Senate EXHIBIT "B"

2015 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI 01apter838 1SECTION 022
l
CRIMES BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBUC Official misconduct.
OFFICE

L_ Entire Chapter
- - - - -- - -
838.022 Official misconduct. -
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to
another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another person to
perform such an act; or
(c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that
directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity served by the public servant.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) The term "public servant" does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant.
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, ors. 775.084.
History.-s. 5, ch. 2003-158.

Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers
should be consulted for official purposes.

Copyright © 2000- 2018 State of Florida.

I of I 5/ 18/2018, 1:30 PM
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes: Online Sunshine http://www. leg.state. fl .us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Sta...

EXHIBIT "C"

Select Year: 2017 Go

The 2017 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI Chapter 838 View Entire Chapter
CRIMES BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
838.022 Official misconduct. -
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant or public contractor, to knowingly and intentionally obtain a
benefit for any person or to cause unlawful harm to another, by:
(a) Falsifying, or causing another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Concealing, covering up, destroying, mutilating, or altering any official record or official document,
except as authorized by law or contract, or causing another person to perform such an act; or
(c) Obstructing, delaying, or preventing the communication of information relating to the commission
of a felony that directly involves or affects the government entity served by the public servant or public
contractor.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) The term "public servant" does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public
servant.
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in
s. 775.082, s. 775.083, ors. 775.084.
History.-s. 5, ch. 2003·158; s. 4, ch. 2016-151.

Copyright o 1995-2018 The Florida Legislature • Privacv Statement • Contact Us

I of 1 5/ 18/20 18, 1:29 PM