By Hayden Thomas By: Hayden Thomas
Photo Credit: Chastity Maynard, Tallahassee Democrat
On November 30, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the city of Tallahassee’s attempt to publicly release the names of two police officers involved in two separate fatal incidents. The court’s decision marked the end of a lengthy legal dispute in which the Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA), a Florida law enforcement union, sued the city of Tallahassee after the city tried to reveal the names of the officers involved in two separate police shootings. Both officers acted in unrelated incidents in the Tallahassee area, where they were involved in “separate encounters with crime suspects that ended in fatalities.” The names of both officers have yet to be released.
According to Florida’s First District Court of Appeals, the following facts regarding the officers and their respective incidents were decided upon. On May 19, 2020, a man named Wilbon Woodard charged and attacked an officer with a hunting-style knife, prompting the officer to defend himself with lethal force. He shot and killed Woodard. In a subsequent unrelated incident on May 27, 2020, a different officer responded to a crime in progress involving a man named Tony McDade, who had just fatally stabbed another man. After the perpetrator spotted the officer, he drew his gun, to which the officer responded by fatally shooting McDade. Both incidents happened within a week of the death of George Floyd, which occurred on May 25, 2020, and protests ensued in the Tallahassee area.
Arguments Heard Throughout the Appeals Process
Both Tallahassee officers were cleared by a Florida Grand Jury nearly four months after Woodard and McDade were killed, prompting the city of Tallahassee to release their names to the public. Almost immediately, the FPBA filed an emergency injunction on behalf of the officers to prevent this release. The FPBA argued that the names should be withheld because of Article I, section 16(b)-(e) of the Florida Constitution, commonly known as Marsy’s Law, which states all victims are entitled to “the right to prevent the disclosure of 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.” These rights are similarly granted to juvenile offenders and accused criminal defendants who have yet to be convicted. In this case, the FPBA claimed that Marsy’s Law applied to officers who are required to use lethal force in acts of self-defense, as the FPBA claimed this made them victims of an aggravated assault. A Tallahassee judge granted the emergency injunction so the officers’ names remained confidential until the case was resolved.
The Second Judicial Circuit blocked the FPBA’s attempt, claiming that “the explicit language of Marsy’s Law was not intended to apply to law enforcement officers when acting in their official capacity.” The court then ordered the city of Tallahassee to release the names of the two officers. The FPBA immediately moved to have the ruling reviewed by the District Court of Appeals, keeping the officers’ identities private for the time being. After hearing arguments, the Florida First District Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s order, stating that “nothing in Article I, section 16 excludes law enforcement officers, or other government employees, from the protections granted to crime victims.” The city of Tallahassee subsequently petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Court’s ruling. After deliberations, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously held that Marsy’s Law does not protect the officers or any crime victim from having their names publicly released, setting a significant new precedent related to privacy and public records. Although this ruling substantially weakens the protections afforded to victims by Marsy’s law, the law will still protect all other elements of a protected individual’s information, as the court only ruled on whether the law protects the names of those protected by the bill. The ruling did not touch on who is specifically protected by Marsy’s law, meaning that officers using lethal force as self-defense may continue to use Mrasy’s law to protect other elements of their identities, so long as it is not their name.
In this ruling, the justices outlined the logic behind their interpretation of Marsy’s Law, particularly elaborating as to why it does not apply to police officers who have used lethal force as self-defense. The court addressed a specific question regarding whether Marsy’s Law contains a right for victims to remain entirely anonymous, stating, “Marsy’s Law guarantees to no victim–police officer or otherwise– the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.” The court found that Marsy’s Law does not protect individuals from having their names released to the public by claiming, “It is one thing to identify a person, and another altogether to locate or harass him or her.” They explained that there are fundamental differences between the meanings of the words “identify” and “locate,” thus confirming that Marsy’s Law does not secure a victim’s right to remain entirely anonymous. The court’s ruling granted the city of Tallahassee freedom to release the names of the two officers involved in the 2020 fatal shootings.
Statewide Ramifications of the Ruling
The Florida Supreme Court ruling claimed that a mere name was not enough information to locate and harass a person. Some, including Mark Caramanica, a Tampa attorney representing multiple media outlets, and Mutaqee Akbar, the McDade family’s attorney, have classified this as a win for government transparency. Others, including Luke Newman, the FPBA’s attorney, have claimed the ruling is out of touch, stating that with the help of modern technology, a person’s name is often enough information to locate or harass them.
Since its ratification in 2018, Florida law enforcement agencies have used Marsy’s Law to conceal the names of officers involved in cases wherein they used lethal force. In addition to police officers, crime victims have also utilized these protections granted to them to allow them to safely take on a meaningful role in the justice process. Due to the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, all crime victims, not just officers, are no longer able to keep their names confidential. Consequently, new legislation or a constitutional amendment will be required if lawmakers want to explicitly protect a crime victim’s name from being released.
The Florida Legislature and Government Transparency
According to CNN, threats towards government officials have risen in recent years. Due to this increase in threats, the Florida legislature has taken steps to further protect their identifying information and, by extension, their safety. This past year, the Florida Legislature made progress on legislation during the 2024 Legislative Session that attempts to conceal state officials’ personal information for safety reasons. Florida House Bill 103, currently enrolled and awaiting response from Governor DeSantis, will exempt county and city attorneys, including deputy and assistant attorneys, from public record requirements. The bill outlines specific elements of a government attorney’s personal identity protected, including their “home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and photograph.” The proposed policy provides similar protections for the personal identification and location information of their spouses and children, including their “names, home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and places of employment.” A notable distinction is that the proposed policy protects the names of spouses and children from the public record, making it clear that new law will make a distinction between names and other personal identifying information.
Additional public records exemption bills seek to grant similar protections to clerks, deputy clerks, and clerk personnel of Appellate Courts and Circuit Courts, in addition to their spouses and children. Like House Bill 103 for Public Records for State and County Attorneys, House Bills 869 and 983 only provide name exemptions for family members, not public employees. With these recent bills attempting to protect government officials’ personal identifying information, the Florida Legislature has made sure to precisely state the extent to which government officials can keep their personal information out of the public record. However, a key difference between these bills and the Florida Supreme Court’s November decision is that the Court does not distinguish between different types of personal identifying information. The Court only stated that Marsy’s law does not protect victims’ names from entering the public record. The Legislature’s recent bills go further than the Court’s ruling, clearly articulating which elements of personal identifying information are protected, exempting certain groups from having their names enter the public record.
Changing Policy: Government Transparency in Florida
Both of the recent actions by Florida’s Supreme Court and Legislature have an effect on government officials’ privacy rights and the release of their personal identifying information. These government actions mark a significant shift in the protections granted to officials and their personal identifying information, showing that the balance between safety and government transparency is an important topic in Florida’s government. Currently, the identities of judicial clerks and government attorneys are more protected than ever before, while the protections for the names of police officers have been eliminated. Leaving the door open for the legislature to enact new policy expanding the protections of Marsy’s law, the Supreme Court stated the following: “Today’s decision neither weakens these various exemptions of certain information from public disclosure, nor prevents the Legislature—in performing the constitutional function reserved to it and not to us—from expanding them.” Made evident by this concluding remark, the court acknowledges the right of Florida’s legislature to pass new policy expanding the protections of Marsy’s Law. However, with little information from the Florida Legislature about any intentions to further protect or weaken the personal identifying information of officers or crime victims, it is unclear whether any future policy will come to fruition.