Florida’s Proposed Law: Shielding Officer Identities in Force Incidents

Police car with flashing red and blue lights.

Florida lawmakers are advancing legislation to shield police officer identities in deadly force cases for at least 72 hours, potentially extending this protection indefinitely if deemed necessary for officer safety.

Quick Takes

The proposed bill would withhold names of officers involved in deadly force incidents for a minimum of 72 hours
Agency heads could extend this confidentiality period indefinitely if they determine it necessary for officer safety
The legislation stems from a 2023 Florida Supreme Court ruling that Marsy’s Law doesn’t automatically grant anonymity to officers
Officers can waive the public records exemption at any time
Critics argue the bill could undermine accountability and transparency in police use-of-force incidents

Legal Foundation for New Protections

The proposed Florida legislation aims to extend Marsy’s Law protections to include police officers involved in deadly force incidents. This move follows a 2023 Florida Supreme Court ruling that determined the state’s victim rights amendment does not include an automatic right to redact officer names. The court unanimously found that while Marsy’s Law protects victims, its text does not explicitly grant identity protection to officers claiming victim status during use-of-force incidents.

The original law was designed to shield information that could be used to “locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim.” The Supreme Court case stemmed from two 2020 Tallahassee police shootings where officers claimed victim status and sought to have their identities withheld. While ruling against automatic anonymity, the court did leave open the possibility for legislative changes to expand these protections.

Details of the Proposed Bill

Senator Joe Gruters is leading this legislative effort, which would institute a minimum 72-hour confidentiality period for officers involved in incidents causing death or “great bodily harm.” After this initial period, agency heads would have discretion to withhold officers’ identities indefinitely if they determine disclosure could threaten officer safety. The bill has already passed committee votes in both the House and Senate with minimal opposition, showing strong support for these expanded protections.

“Information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim.” – Source

Notably, officers would retain the right to waive this public records exemption at any time should they choose to make their identity public. The legislation has been crafted as part of a broader effort to protect crime victims’ identities, with provisions applying to all alleged crime victims but containing specific language addressing law enforcement officers involved in use-of-force incidents. These measures represent a direct response to the court’s invitation for legislative clarification.

Competing Interests and Concerns

The legislation has encountered limited opposition in committee hearings, with Senator Carlos Guillermo Smith emerging as one of the few vocal critics. Smith has expressed concerns about the “subjective” nature of indefinitely withholding officers’ identities, suggesting it could potentially undermine accountability and transparency in policing. Civil rights organizations have also raised concerns that these changes could be abused to shield officers from proper scrutiny in cases involving questionable use of force.

“Subjective”

Additional legislation is also moving through the Florida House that would prevent non-disciplinary investigative files from being included in an officer’s personnel records. This companion bill, sponsored by Representative Tom Fabricio, has received bipartisan support but faces opposition from the Florida Sheriffs Association over provisions requiring complaints to be signed under oath. These measures collectively represent an effort to balance officer protections with public information rights, though critics argue they tilt too heavily toward shielding law enforcement from scrutiny.