Florida Bills Would Hide the Names of Police Officers Who Kill People
The bills would classify police and correctional officers who kill people on the job as crime victims.

Bills filed in Florida would allow law enforcement agencies to hide the names of police and correctional officers who kill people.
Such legislation was widely expected after the Florida Supreme Court ruled in December that police departments could not invoke Marsy's Law, a crime victims' rights law adopted by Florida voters in 2018, to hide the names of officers involved in deadly shootings. The ruling was much broader than expected, though, and stripped privacy protections from civilian crime victims as well.
The legislation is one of several efforts in the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature to further insulate police in the Sunshine State—once lauded for its expansive public record laws—from scrutiny. As Reason reported yesterday, two other bills advancing through the Legislature would ban cities and counties from forming civilian police oversight boards.
State Rep. Chuck Brannan (R–Macclenny) filed House Bill 1605 and House Bill 1607 earlier this month. The former would expand the definition of "crime victims" to include "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 latter would exempt records that could be used to identify and harass crime victims from the state's public records law unless the victim opts to have it disclosed. "The Legislature finds that the release of any such information or records that could be used to locate or harass a crime victim or the victim's family could subject such victims or their families to further trauma," the bill says.
The bills have the backing of powerful police unions in the state as well. "For people to exclude police officers just because we wear the badge and we protect and serve, that's not fair to us," John Kazanjian, president of the Florida Police Benevolent Association, told the Tampa Bay Times.
The legal battle over whether law enforcement was covered by Marsy's Law began in 2020 after reporters filed records requests for the names of the officers involved in two fatal police shootings in Tallahassee. The Florida Police Benevolent Association filed a lawsuit against the city to prevent disclosure, arguing that the identities of the officers were confidential under a provision of Marsy's Law that protects "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."
In another case in 2022, the Marion County Sheriff's Office invoked Marsy's Law to attempt to shield the identities of six jail deputies involved in the death of Scott Whitley, a mentally ill man who died during a violent cell extraction after being bumrushed, tased, and pepper-sprayed.
However, the conservative Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the police unions. "One's name, standing alone, is not that kind of information or record," Florida Supreme Court Justice John D. Couriel wrote. "It communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered."
In the Florida Supreme Court case last year, opponents of police secrecy included not just media organizations and civil rights groups but also supporters of Marsy's Law.
"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," Marsy's Law for Florida told the Tallahassee Democrat in October.
It's an example, once again, of crime victims being invoked by lawmakers and law enforcement—and ignored when their opinion is inconvenient.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The bills would classify police and correctional officers who kill people on the job as crime victims.
After repeatedly assaulting the officer's fists and feet with his face the assailant finally succumbed to self inflicted injury.
Just think of the trauma an officer goes through for shooting someone who didn't deserve it, like say, an unarmed protestor, trespassing on public property.
Now let us pray to canonized saint of the Church of Trump, She who matters, the Martyr, hallowed be Her name.
idjit
Except when the shooting is of a violent perp clambering through a window smashed out by fellow rioters who refuses to comply with police commands.
She was violent against...what? Wood?
I made 96,760 Bucks just last month by working online from my home. I am a full-time college student and just doing this in my free time for a few hours per week by using my laptop. Everyone can check this out and start making cash online in a very easy way by just following instructions…... http://Www.Worktoday7.co
Nice to see Florida and New York in concord about something.
So criminal justice is all about "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to cash bail but for officers accusation = guilt, got it. Try some consistency in your supposed principles you pro-criminal activist
No, that's not the point here. There is no suggestion that police should be presumed guilty when they kill someone. Most police killings are probably justified (correctional officers I'm less sure about). But police activities should always be matters of public record.
There is no suggestion that police should be presumed guilty when they kill someone.
They have a presumption of power, not innocence.
Most police killings are probably justified
Most?
correctional officers I’m less sure about
They’re worse. If it’s possible to be worse than a cop, jailors do it admirably.
But police activities should always be matters of public record.
Power and authority are not synonyms.
Guilt has nothing to do with it, unless you are assuming that every time an officer uses force he is committing a crime. The use of force by (identified) state agents against citizens must always be a matter of public record.
That was a dumb comment. People who receive cashless bail are still identified in the media and in public records. Why don't you try another straw man? That one burned down.
The assumption of guilt is something the media does to anyone who isn't a privileged minority. If cops want anonymity so the media won't try them in the eyes of the public then this anonymity should be extended to all citizens who are facing a trial.
What really needs to happen is the media needs to be kept out of the entire process unless they are willing to play by the rules.
Well that makes sense, so the other prisoners they are locked up with won't know they were cops, right?
"I say, Mortimer. Did you perchance read the article in this morning's edition about the former law enforcement officer residing in cell 47? We must bid him welcome and extend an invite to our next cellblock soirée."
In New Hampshire we have "Laurie's List" which is all about more transparency for the public.
Um, sending dogs after them sounds better than letting police kill without any possible consequence, at least to me.
"One's name, standing alone, is not that kind of information or record," Florida Supreme Court Justice John D. Couriel wrote. "It communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered."
Except it's 2024 and we all know how to use the internet. Name's usually all a person needs.
"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,"
Know what exactly? It's entirely appropriate to consider them crime victims.
Let's keep in mind that, contrary to some of the cynicism displayed here, that in any defensive shooting, there are two victims. The one with the lead, and the one who fired it. People who watch too much TV or play too many videogames might be led to believe that shooting someone else - especially fatally - is no big deal. Reality is, that many home defense shooters end up with some hardcore PTSD to deal with.
And so do cops. We can't just dismissively sneer that they're trained for this sort of thing - because, really, does anything train you to be emotionally indifferent to being forced to use lethal violence? Some quit soon after, others spend years in therapy and still wake up screaming at night.
And then to couple that with a society that has been intentionally misdirected to hate and scorn cops, to the point that they're being casually run down in the street in broad daylight in places like New York?
It's not as unreasonable as one might reflexively think.
Yes. Remember the Michael Brown killer cop? Oh, yes, his life was ruined because all those scum spread lies about him. Horrible outcome since Michael Brown was a thug that attacked Officer Wilson. I despise cops who abuse the badge, but the idea that some cop doing his job and defending himself should be pilloried is just awful.
Typical Reason--not coming close to objectivity.
Does this mean they will no longer be protected by qualified immunity? [holds breath]
I'm suggesting, try police as an entire team and presume to hold the entire team responsible for the actions of the weakest link.
Remember when Republicans used to at least *pretend* they were the party of smaller government? I know, I know - we Libertarians always saw through it but they managed to snooker a certain sector of the electorate and win office on promises to decrease the size and scope of government. They never did, and never will. Now BOTH sides of the legacy duopoly are sworn to use the iron fist of the state to bludgeon their opponents; in Florida, everyone who isn't a straight white male.