• 24/7 /365 LABOR and LEGAL protection for ALL incidents while acting in a capacity as a police officer under the color of law. (This includes off-duty details).
• An FOP criminal defense attorney and labor representative will respond (24/7) to ALL officer involved shootings and critical incidents, and will handle them from start to finish.
• There are NO caps or limits on coverage.
• Coverage for non-duty related cases including arbitration.
• Coverage within the State of Florida for non-duty incidents related to the use of a concealed firearm, while carried lawfully, in defense of one’s self or others (HR218 coverage).
• Coverage for SWAT Medics; use of deadly force by non-sworn personnel in support of law enforcement activities.
• Additional benefit of up to 5 hours of attorney coverage for any NON-work related incident/arrest of an FOP Labor plan member.
• FOP attorneys and labor representatives are LOCAL.
• All labor representatives are retired police officers and work in tandem with our FOP attorneys.
• Our FOP attorneys handle ALL arbitrations.
• The Florida Labor Council is governed by a board of directors comprised by FULL-TIME active police officers that are elected by the membership.

Legal Defense Manual

FOP General Counsel, Paul Daragjati

Paul Daragjati serves as General Counsel to the Florida State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, having held that position since 2018.  Mr. Daragjati graduated from the University of North Florida in 1993, and thereafter entered service with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, where he worked as a police officer until 2001. At that time Mr. Daragjati attended the Florida State University School of Law, and upon graduation in 2003, entered service with the Office of the State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, where he prosecuted both felonies and misdemeanors. In 2007, Mr. Daragjati was retained by the Fraternal Order of Police, Jacksonville Consolidated Lodge 5-30, where he served as General Counsel. As General Counsel to the Jacksonville FOP, Mr. Daragjati represented over 2500 police and correctional officers in labor, employment, criminal and administrative matters, as well as civil and appellate litigation in state and federal courts. Since 2007, Mr. Daragjati has represented over 150 officers in deadly force encounters and has defended as over 75 law enforcement officers sued in their personal capacities in federal civil rights cases. In 2013, Mr. Daragjati joined Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson, a firm specializing in the representation of public employee pension funds, where he served many retirement systems in their daily operations and in resolving complex legal issues. 
 
Since 2003, Mr. Daragjati has represented clients in front of administrative bodies, state and federal trial and appellate courts and in arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution forums. Mr. Daragjati has tried 24 cases to a verdict in both state and federal, civil and criminal courts, and has prosecuted administrative actions in arbitration, civil service forums, career service forums, and in front of administrative agencies. Moreover, Mr. Daragjati has 19 published appellate decisions.
 
Mr. Daragjati is a member of the Bars of Florida and Georgia and is admitted to practice in the United States Courts for the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.  Mr. Daragjati’s professional memberships have included the Florida Bar’s Fourth Circuit Grievance Committee, where he served as chairman, and the Labor & Employment and Administrative Law Sections of the Florida Bar.
​

FOP Cases

• Tobler v. City of Cape Coral
  • Ofc. Tobler had a disagreement with her supervisor regarding her documentation of a specific call for service.  The supervisor then began to review all the member’s BWC video for the previous three months and asserted that the member failed to write reports on 18 incidents.  The supervisor then put together a very biased summary and sent it to Professional Standards to request an investigation.  The investigation revealed that the member did not write reports on battery, domestic violence, vehicle accident and property damage calls.  However, this is a common practice within the agency.  The supervisor also charged the member with insubordination for a discussion about how to handle a call.  The significant defense issues in this case are whether proper training was provided regarding these specific incidents and whether the discipline was proportional with discipline instituted in other cases under similar circumstances.  A two-day arbitration hearing was held March 15th and 16th. Arbitrator found no just cause for discipline and made the member whole.​​
• In re: Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits of Rafael Valdes
  • Retired FOP member was accused of using his position to commit theft of material from the department armory. The pension board moved to forfeit his pension. A hearing was held, the matter was briefed and the Hialeah Pension Plan Board awarded the member his full pension.
• Johnson v. Lauderhill
  • during a pre-determination hearing for Sgt. Atina Johnson where the department had proposed a demotion, Johnson made statements that the chief of police claimed were untruthful. The FOP prevailed on the demotion case, and she retained her stripes and served only a 40-hour suspension without pay.  However, the department investigated her based on the veracity of her statements and subsequently terminated her for the alleged untruthful comments she made during that Pre-D hearing.  An arbitration hearing, which was originally set for two days, was held on January 14th.  At the end of the day, the arbitrator had a meeting with the attorneys and told the city to work this matter out.  The parties negotiated a settlement that placed the member back to work, with full back-pay. 
• Russell v. Charlotte County SO
  • Charlotte S.O. Lodge 66 member had a meeting with his Sgt. and Lt. to discuss career promotional issues.  He was asked by his Lt. if he had deployed the LPR Trailer at the fairgrounds over the previous weekend.  The member replied that he did, but a short time later re-considered this and had second thoughts as to whether he was confusing his dates with a deployment on a cold case location from the previous week and half earlier.  The member was later asked by his Sgt. why he lied about the trailer, to which the member replied that he honestly forgot and did not intend to mislead them or outright lie about not deploying the trailer.  The Lt. met with the member and told him he had already submitted an administrative report about this incident and sent it through the chain of command for further review.  The member was placed on administrative leave with pay after being notified of an internal affairs investigation for violation of Neglect of Duty and Untruthfulness.  After an investigation, the member was notified that his appointment with the Charlotte County S.O. had been withdrawn and he was no longer employed with their agency.  Arbitration was held and the arbitrator issued an order granting the grievance, finding that the agency did not establish just cause for the member’s termination.
• FOP Lodge 86 v. Orange County Corrections
  • The union filed a class grievance due to the department’s continued violation of its members’ Weingarten rights. At the hearing, the department settled the matter, agreeing to change the policy of its internal affairs office
• Durden v. Jacksonville Aviation Authority
  • A Jacksonville Aviation Authority civilian employee, who is a member of the labor council through the Jacksonville Airport Police FOP Lodge 85 Auxiliary, was terminated for violation of work rules.  The member was an airport police and fire dispatcher with high-level security system access credentials.  In addition to dispatch duties, the member is generally assigned to operate airport doors and surveillance cameras from a stationary computer terminal in the dispatch room.  After an incident where a TSA employee was accused of battering another, the member accessed video of the incident at the request of police officers investigating the battery.  Additionally, the TSA supervisor asked to review the video, so the member stopped by the TSA operations center and pulled the video up on a TSA terminal monitor to allow the TSA manager to review.  The JAA found this to be a significant security violation and terminated the member.  An arbitration hearing was held on December 5th, 2019 wherein the FOP presented evidence that the member was allowed access to all areas, and that his security violation was not as egregious as other JAA employees who were not terminated for more substantial security violations.  The arbitrator granted the grievance and reversed the termination, awarding the member significant back-pay.   
• St. Cloud FOP v. City of St. Cloud
  • An Unfair Labor Practice Hearing was scheduled in St. Cloud, Florida based on a charge by the FOP that the city retaliated against the local FOP president and interfered and coerced the executive board in matters that are protected under Chapter 447.  In this case, the deputy chief of police wanted to return to work as deputy chief after completing the DROP instead of separating from employment.  The city manager asked the union president for the union’s position on whether they oppose such an arrangement.  The union’s executive board discussed the issue and decided against it.  After some discussion the Board wrote a letter to the city manager and met with him to express their views.  The city manager decided not to take any action to allow the deputy chief to return.  Within days of that decision, the department initiated a criminal investigation for forgery and uttering with the union president as the target, based on a four-year-old civil dispute the union president had with a business that was outside the jurisdictional boundaries of St. Cloud.  Furthermore, the department initiated an internal investigation into the discussion at the union meeting, based on a complaint by a person who was present at the meeting, claiming that the union did not make the decision they made to oppose the re-employment of the deputy chief.  Five members of the executive board were disciplined pursuant to the investigation.  The hearing was set for February 28, 2020, but at start of the hearing, the parties struck a deal on the discipline.  The department agreed to reduce the discipline for all members to an oral counseling that would not be used for progressive discipline in the future and that it would be purged from their IA file six months form the date of the initial discipline.  The city also agreed that it would not interfere in the administration of the local lodge in the future. 
• Hatcher v. Clay County SO
  • Member, a male corrections officer, was accused of inappropriate relationships with female inmates, and was terminated. A career service board hearing was held where the board voted unanimously finding no just cause for termination. 
• Garcia v. Osceola County SO
  • An Osceola County Sheriff’s Office Deputy, who is a member of the Legal Defense Plan was served with notice of withdrawal of appointment in July 2019.  The member was observed driving to a pre-arranged non-emergency SWAT call-out, traveling over 90 mph by a road patrol Lt.  When the in-car video was pulled, it showed he traveled intermittently between 80 and 110 mph during the approximately 20-minute drive to the call-out.  The internal investigator pulled three previous months of the member’s in-car video and discovered that the member exceeded 90 mph while driving in non-emergency situations and off-duty periods approximately 17 times.  A career service hearing was held where the FOP challenged the excessive discipline by showing other deputies receiving lighter discipline for similar instances and argued that the member’s discipline was arbitrary and capricious.  The career service board agreed with the FOP and reduced the member’s disciplined to a suspension and further training. 
• Daniel Seiman OIS – A Pensacola officer was involved in an OIS, involving a drug suspect. The State Attorney took the case to a grand jury, where the FOP represented the officer from response at the scene all the way through the issuance of no true bill at the grand jury.