the execution of search warrants. Sosa relies on the testimony of Hames and Sergeant Milton Hall, each having stated that he believes a written policy exists requiring the seizure of guns and large sums of money during searches for purposes of safekeeping (see Hames Dep. at 174:7-13; Dep. of Milton Hall [D.E. 213-6] at 106:16-21, 112:11-113:12). Hames and Hall do not identify what government officials authored or approved of this apparent policy. In order to prove the policy is “official,” thereby subjecting the County to liability, Sosa bears the burden of demonstrating that the policy was promulgated by the Board or County Manager, as the final policymakers for the County. Reference to these men’s testimony does not satisfy that burden. See, e.g., Wilson, 2005 WL 3597737, at *8-*9 (<HOLDING>); Buzzi, 62 F.Supp.2d at 1359-60 (same).
holding that department does not have independent authority to impose device in absence of court order holding that director of the police department is not a final policymaking official because his decisions are constrained by the county manager the board and administrative order and polices holding that determination as to whether an official has been delegated final policymaking authority is a question of law for the court not one of fact for the juiy holding that director of police department does not have final policymaking authority in miamidade county despite having some discretionary authority holding that the county attorney had de facto authority and noting that the objection to the county attorneys authority was first made on appeal