Case: Securus Technologies v. Florida Department of Corrections

On January 29, 2019, Securus Technologies and one of its Senior Territory Managers filed this lawsuit in the Leon County Circuit County Court in Florida against the Florida Department of Corrections and the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, alleged that the defendant violated Article III, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution by arranging to divert proceeds from the inmate telephone contract to fund a series of value-added priorities, unconstitutionally infringing on the Florida Legislature’ exclusive authority. The plaintiff sought a writ of quo warranto (remedy determining whether defendant has authority to execute a given action) and declaratory relief stating that the Department lacked authority to obtain the value-added benefits instead of contributing those funds to the General Revenue Fund; the plaintiff also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the Department of Corrections and its Secretary from executing any contract for inmate telephone services.

The plaintiff claimed that in prior years, the defendant had issued Invitations to Negotiate (“ITN”) to telecommunications vendors that did not place any cost burden on the Department, but rather passed the costs onto families and friends of prisoners. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant aimed to decrease the per-minute call rate as much as possible and required the vendor to remit a portion of the gross revenue to the Department. In November 2016, the Department issued an ITN that explicitly prohibited remission of commissions, instead requesting value-added services that included a cell-phone forensic laboratory, facial recognition software, and additional radios. The plaintiff claimed that while negotiating with vendors, the defendants repeatedly emphasized their desire for increased value-added services in lieu of commissions being remitted to the Department. Plaintiff argued that neither the Florida Constitution, the Department’s enabling statute, nor other Florida law authorized the Department to solicit or accept value-added services instead of contracted telephone commissions.

On February 26, 2019, Global Tel Link Corp, the vendor that was ultimately granted the contract was allowed to intervene. On March 11, 2019, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the complaint should be dismissed. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not exhausted their administrative remedies since the plaintiff’s administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings was still pending. The defendant also argued that Plaintiff Senior Territory Manager lacked standing since he did not allege that he suffered any special injury by not receiving the contract. Finally, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to state a valid cause of action, since Article III, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution addressed the membership of the two state legislative bodies, not budgeting and appropriations. The defendant noted that Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution may be the more appropriate provision but, even under that provision, the plaintiffs would fail to state a valid cause of action since the Department procured a no-cost contract that included value-added services and did not appropriate any money from the State’s General Revenue Fund.

On May 1, 2019, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, finding that by assuming the statements of fact in the plaintiff’s complaint, they met the burden of pleading. Florida law provides an exception to the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies when the agency has acted without colorable authority clearly in excess of its delegated power. The Court also found that both plaintiffs had standing to seek a writ of quo warranto to protect a public right.

On June 14, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. Although the state court records do not provide a reason for the dismissal, the administrative proceeding was ruled in favor of the Florida Department of Corrections. The administrative law judge found that the ITN process allowed the Department of Corrections to award the contract to the vendor that provided the “best value,” and determined that the factors determining “best value” included but were not limited to price, quality, design, and workmanship. The case is now closed.