In response to a recent state Supreme Court decision, a Florida lawmaker has proposed measures that would restore the right of crime victims, including on-duty police officers, not to have their names disclosed to the public.
Rep. Charles Brannan (R-Macclenny) filed House Bill 1607 and HB 1605 on Jan. 9. The two measures would effectively overturn a high court decision saying a crime victim’s name does not amount to identifiable information that can be used to harass the victim or the victim’s family members. The state Constitution allows victims a path to block disclosure of such information.
The Florida Supreme Court decision was issued in response to a lawsuit brought by two Tallahassee police officers who argued they should be entitled to the privacy protections provided by Marsy’s Law, the constitutional amendment passed in 2018, after being physically attacked. But the high court found that on-duty police officers could not be crime victims.
The group Marsy’s Law for Florida is not supporting Brannan’s legislation, arguing that the changes go too far by including police officers within the provisions restoring victims’ privacy protections.
“Marsy’s Law supports any bill which restores the privacy rights of Florida crime victims,” the group’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Fennell, said in a statement emailed to the Florida Record. “However, we cannot fully support a bill outright unless it includes a provision to ensure that when reviewing the conduct of an on-duty law enforcement officer who has used physical force, the right to privacy of their name must quickly yield to the public’s right to know."
Among the provisions of Marsy’s Law is one preventing the automatic release of personally identifiable information such as the victim’s name, according to supporters of the constitutional amendment. The high court’s opinion effectively took away crime victims’ right to privacy, supporters say, since the disclosure of a name can lead to public access to information that could pose threats to victims’ safety.
In its definition of a “crime victim,” HB 1605 specifically includes on-duty police officers who use deadly force to protect themselves.
“The term includes law enforcement officers, correctional officers or correctional probation officers who use deadly force in the course and scope of their employment or official duties,” the text of the bill states. “The term does not include the accused. As used in this subsection, (the) terms ‘crime’ and ‘criminal’ include delinquent acts and conduct.”
The measure also makes clear that crime victims’ rights include the ability to ensure that their names are not disclosed to the public.
“‘Information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim's family’ includes, but is not limited to, any record or document that may reveal the identity of the crime victim, including the name, home or employment telephone number, home or employment address; the personal assets of the victim of a crime; information or documents that identify that person as the victim of a crime; or disclose the identity of members of the crime victim's household,” the bill states.
Those who oppose Brannan’s measures argue that the public’s right to know about details involving law enforcement agencies’ use of force needs to be acknowledged in Florida statutes.