The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Crime Victims (Including Police) Have No Florida Constitutional Right to Block Disclosure of Their Names
The Florida Constitution's crime victims provision (known as Marsy's Law) provides, in relevant part, that "every [crime] victim" has
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.
Does this include the right to prevent the disclosure of the victim's name? No, said the Florida Supreme Court today in City of Tallahassee v. Florida Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. The case involved police officers who "used lethal force in detaining a suspect," and who claimed they were crime victims who were acting in self-defense; but the court's rationale extends to all crime victims. From Justice John Couriel's opinion for the court:
[We hold that] Marsy's Law guarantees to no victim—police officer or otherwise—the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure…. Marsy's Law speaks only to the right of victims to "prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass" them or their families. One's name, standing alone, is not that kind of information or record; it communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered.
In other provisions, our Constitution expressly addresses the disclosure of a person's identity. See art. X, § 25(b), Fla. Const. ("In providing such access [to certain medical records], the identity of patients involved in the incidents shall not be disclosed ….") (emphasis added); art. X, § 29(d)(4), Fla. Const. ("All records containing the identity of qualifying patients shall be confidential and kept from public disclosure ….") (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that Florida voters ratified an implicit guarantee that, elsewhere in the same constitution, is expressly stated.
Similarly, when our statutes reflect a legislative bargain to conceal the identities of persons, they do so expressly. We see this in section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2018), the very legislation that discusses, among other things, confidentiality, public records, and crime victims. [Examples omitted. -EV] …
Protecting crime victims from being located—as opposed to identified—is a meaningful distinction, for exposure of a crime victim's location creates a threat of physical danger that exposure of his or her name alone does not generally pose….
That the plain language of section 16(b)(5) does not explicitly protect a victim's name from disclosure stands to reason. For if it did, it would raise serious doubt about how to square a victim's rights under Marsy's Law and a defendant's right to "confront at trial adverse witnesses." … [A] defendant's knowledge of the identity of an adverse witness is often critical to the force and integrity of a cross-examination, as a witness's identity may be germane to the determination of bias or credibility….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'd have preferred a ruling expressly stating that on-the-job police officers are categorically not "crime victims" when they kill someone.
On what grounds could they rule that? It's entirely possible that the suspect is a criminal and the officer killed the suspect in self-defense. Then the officer is indeed a crime victim. Are we supposed to assume that all such officers are guilty (and therefore not crime victims), without a trial?
I'm not saying that a cop can't theoretically shoot someone in self-defense. (Those furtive movements, donchaknow!) I'm saying that a cop shooting a suspect, in self-defense or otherwise, is not what any rational person thinks of as a "crime victim," and was obviously not what Florida voters had in mind when they enacted "Marsy's Law."
I’m saying that a cop shooting a suspect, in self-defense or otherwise, is not what any rational person thinks of as a “crime victim,”
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/dallas-police-officer-shot-while-serving-capital-murder-warrant/
Now do your best impersonation of a rational person and tell us how the cop who was shot here was not the victim of a crime. If you think it helps your case, assume that the assailant he shot back at ends up dying.
They're both victims! Under a broad reading of Marsy's law, you don't get to know either who did the killing or got killed! Talk about a recipe for abuse, kudos to this court.
I’d have preferred a ruling expressly stating that on-the-job police officers are categorically not “crime victims” when they kill someone.
I don't know if a cop used to beat you up and take your lunch money, or if one stole you girlfriend...or whatever it was that gave you such a knee-jerk hard-on for LEOs...but that's a dumb position even for you.
"One's name, standing alone, is not that kind of information or record; it communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered"
I wonder if the judges are just visiting the 21st century, or if they plan to stay here - it must be so confusing for them, carts that drive themselves without horses, lights that shine without emitting smoke etc