Florida Lawmakers Don't Want You To Know When a Cop Shoots Someone
The Sunshine State is considering a bill that would expand protections for law enforcement officers who use deadly force or cause great bodily harm.

A Florida bill that could allow agencies to withhold the names of police officers involved in use-of-force incidents resulting in death or great bodily harm has passed in the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee with little opposition. Companion legislation has also advanced in the state's House of Representatives.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Joe Gruters (R–Sarasota), was introduced in response to a 2023 Florida Supreme Court ruling that the state's constitutional protections for alleged crime victims under the state's current Marsy's Law do not include a right to anonymity.
The court's opinion stemmed from a 2020 case involving two fatal police shootings in Tallahassee. Reporters sought the names of the officers involved, whose use of force was deemed justified, to enhance transparency and the public's trust in the department. But under Marsy's Law, these officers were considered victims, and departments were banned from disclosing "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."
The court's seven Republican-appointed justices took a textualist approach and held unanimously that no victim—police officer or otherwise—had the right to remain anonymous under Marsy's Law as written. The court reasoned that the central clause of the ban did not include the concept of identity, which the law's drafters were capable of including. Further, the court was concerned that broadening the interpretation of the clause would introduce inconsistencies within other areas of the state constitution and undermine defendants' right to confront witnesses.
However, the court stated that the opinion did not prevent an expansion of the law to exempt more information from disclosure, leaving the door open to future legislative action. Now, Florida legislators are considering Gruters' bill to reverse the court's ruling and expand Marsy's Law protections by exempting the release of alleged crime victims' names in public records.
But the bill's language doesn't stop there. The proposal also creates an additional protection within the existing Marsy's Law for law enforcement officers involved in "use of force incidents," defined as those where an officer uses deadly force or force that results in great bodily harm. The bill mandates that the names of officers involved in a use-of-force incident cannot be disclosed for a minimum of 72 hours following an incident. Employing agencies would also be granted the ability to extend the confidentiality period indefinitely or until the agency determines that anonymity is no longer necessary. This provision would extend alleged crime victims' anonymity protections advocated for by Marsy's Law proponents to all law enforcement officers, regardless of whether the officer was a victim of a crime when force was used.
Marsy's Law amendments, which have been enacted in 12 states (and overturned in two), have been criticized for being, at best, confusing, vague, and duplicative, and at worst, seriously infringing on defendants' constitutional and due process rights. Criminal justice transparency is essential to building public trust, which is why civil rights groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, have warned that versions of Marsy's Law could be abused by law enforcement to shield officers who use force while on duty from accountability.
Gruters' proposed changes to Florida's Marsy's Law not only invite such abuse—they almost guarantee it.
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
You didn't complain when Democrats did it. That makes it ok.
Not only boring but irrelevant. This is a new low.
What part of "which have been enacted in 12 states" did you not understand? One of them was California, where Republicans are an endangered species. That means it's ok.
Anything wrong and outrageous that Trump/Republicans do is always ok because Biden/Democrats did it first and the person complaining didn't complain when Biden/Democrats did it.
That's standard reasoning in the Reason comments. Only a leftist would say different. Are you a leftist?
REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!
The court's seven Republican-appointed justices took a textualist approach and held unanimously that no victim—police officer or otherwise—had the right to remain anonymous under Marsy's Law as written.
Fucking disingenuous moron.
I think you left out the part where the state says body camera footage must be revealed in 72 hours. There is no protection for police that kill people.
YOU DIDN'T COMPLAIN WHEN THE DEMOCRATS DID IT, SARCASMIC!!!
In fact you grabbed your withered little whiskey-pickled cock in both hands and blew endless loads over the thought of Ashli Babbitt getting her head blown off, and acted like releasing the name of her shooter was pure blasphemy.
First time you had an erection in years I'll bet, you sick little pig.
Lol
You only complain when Democrats do it and then try to defend Republicans doing the same thing.
Case in point from this morning's roundup:
https://reason.com/2025/04/09/dont-trust-the-experts-make-them-up/?comments=true#comment-10995285
You complained when Democrats violated taxpayer privacy rules. But now that Republicans are set to do the same thing, what do you do? Do you complain? Oh, no! Instead, you just accuse the IRS agency head of hypocrisy! Like that will do any good.
Poor Jeff.
You absolute grotesque piece of shit.
Hey folks! Do you know what Rapejeff collectivist nazi is trying to say is as bad as a protester getting her head blown off, and the Dems hiding the perps identity?
Wait for it...
The IRS has been ordered to share information on illegals to assist another government department with law enforcement criminal investigations, just like it has with every other government law enforcement department since it was created. This is same-same claims Jeffy.
When I say that this demented psychopath is evil, I'm not exaggerating. The sinister fuck actually thought it was a valid comparison.
Every time I think Jeff can't get any lower, he starts to dig. Whether making excuses for the gang rapists of a child, fantasizing about people violently raping their sisters, or comparing a woman getting her head blown off to interdepartmental information sharing, Jeff gets more monstrous every day.
god you are such a Nazi. I never said your hypocrisy is the same as someone getting their head blown off. You invented that because you're a gaslighting fascist piece of shit.
Your problem is, I'm not actually a Nazi. So you have to invent the villain to rail against. You however really do invent lies and carry water for authoritarian shitheads.
Also, let's not forget the fake false equivalency you tried to create. You tried to condemn the IRS commissioner for hypocrisy for not resigning when an employee committed a crime in leaking taxpayer info, but for resigning when the agency was forced to disclose taxpayer info about illegal immigrants. The two situations are not comparable at all and it is just dishonest to claim otherwise.
Whether making excuses for the gang rapists of a child, fantasizing about people violently raping their sisters, or comparing a woman getting her head blown off to interdepartmental information sharing,
lol I did none of those things, that is what I mean by inventing a villain. I have to admit, you are a good liar and a good gaslighter.
This is fucking hilarious.
It's not like there is a history of Leftists lying about the circumstances, whipping up violent mobs with their lies and murdering people or destroying portions of cities. I can understand why you'd want to push for more of that Autumn, but not for any reason that isn't evil.
So because Leftists exist, the identities of police officers involved in shootings should remain secret?
Lieutenant Michael Byrd
You mean, the officer who was acting in defense of himself and in the defense of the lives and property of others against a mob led by a woman who was literally crawling through broken glass to commit an act of aggression? You mean, that officer? Hmm I think we already know his identity. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
That's cool, Obama didn't want to know when nigs shot each other in chicago
OK, so - let's have a reasonable compromise. From now on, when a shooting occurs, if a cop is involved we'll publish his name.
And the same goes for details of everyone else that's arrested for a crime. We publish their names, and race, and sex, and sexual orientation, and gender identity, and when feasible (esp. if related to their crimes) their political leanings, and arrest/criminal history, and citizenship status, and parentage, and history of drug use, and educational history, and whether or not they're welfare recipients (and/or what tax bracket they're in), and voter registration and participation.
For transparency and public trust. The public should be free to evaluate a free press that has access to information that allows them to make informed decisions based on criminal arrest/conviction trends.
Now, if we're being honest, most folks on the right have managed to figure this out despite the government stonewalling against this information. But why not make it easy, and open, and honest for everyone?
TELL the public how much the black people are committing crimes. TELL the public about the mayhem caused by illegals. TELL the public how much sexual/domestic abuse occurs among lower-income communities (especially ones with drug issues). TELL the people how many pedophiles and would-be pedophiles are caught among the magical rainbow people. TELL the people that the "mostly peaceful" rioters are almost unilaterally left-wing in political leaning and vote.
Why are we not just being fully transparent and honest about who the scumbags in our society are and tend to be?
And y'know, now that I think more on the subject, I come to a particular example.
The Covenant School Shooter. One of the VERY VERY FIRST details we should have learned about that person wasn't even her name. Because who cares. What really mattered was that she was transgender. This would become a key factor in the motive for the shooting, and the litany of mental health problems that manifested into it.
Instead, the Media Industrial Complex (and Law Enforcement) went to extreme lengths to bury that fact and its relationship to the horrific act. Why, especially when it was far more relevant than her given (let alone later assumed) name?
"Criminal justice transparency is essential to building public trust" right?
Interesting how Blings can just ascribe benevolent motives for the reporters seeking to expose the identities of the exonerated police officers.
Sounds like they're planning on shooting a lot more people there. Cops gonna cop.