TALLAHASSEE — A Leon County Florida Circuit Court judge has ruled two Tallahassee police officers involved in deadly on-duty shootings are not protected under a victims' rights law while on the job.
"Our attorney has been following the case very closely," said Skip Conroy, community affairs supervisor for the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office.
Judge Charles Dodson ordered the names of the officers to be released by the city. The Florida Police Benevolent Association has already filed an appeal and notice of automatic stay, according to Conroy.
"We are eager to see the final appellant court's determination as it relates to the constitutional rights provided under Marsy's Law," said Conroy.
The Police Benevolent Association (PBA) initially filed the lawsuit against the city in an attempt to try to stop it from releasing the names of two officers involved in separate shootings that killed two civilians. The PBA argued the officers were victims of crimes and protected under Marsy's Law.
A court filing shared in an article by USA Today noted one officer was accused of killing a suspect who pointed a knife at him in a threatening way, while the other shot someone who pointed a gun at him. The PBA claims both cops were victims in crimes of aggravated assault involving a deadly weapon.
The First Amendment Foundation, Florida Press Association, Gannett Co. Inc., Miami Herald Media Co. and the New York Times Co., along with the city, argued due to the circumstances of the incidents, the officers are not covered by the law, and public records law dictates their names should be released.
Dodson found that the officers in this case aren't looking for protection from their accusers since they've died. Instead, Dodson found they are looking for protection from "possible retribution for their on-duty actions from unknown persons in the community."
Dodson noted that police officers have a tough and necessary job, but the public has the right to evaluate their actions.
"This case presents a situation in which law enforcement seeks to enforce its interpretation of a specific constitutional provision which has the practical effect of removing their actions from public scrutiny," Dodson wrote in his order, "This is inconsistent with the expressed purpose of Marsy's Law."