Victims’ rights law doesn’t shield identities of cops who use lethal force, Florida high court rules

TALLAHASSEE (CN) — A Florida law granting certain privacy rights to crime victims stops short of guaranteeing victims anonymity, the Florida Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that prevents police officers who use lethal force from shielding their identity behind the law.

In a 6-0 decision, the conservative court rejected an attempt by Florida’s largest police union to bar the city of Tallahassee from releasing the names of two police officers who fatally shot suspects in self-defense during separate encounters in May 2020.

The Florida high court ruled that Marsy’s Law — an amendment to the Florida Constitution overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2018, which established privacy rights for crime victims — does not guarantee anonymity for police officers or any other victim of crime.

"Marsy’s Law guarantees to no victim — police officer or otherwise — the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure," Justice John Couriel wrote on behalf of the court. "No such right is enumerated in the text of article I, section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution.”

The legal battle between the city and the Florida Police Benevolent Association union began after a pair of incidents in which police officers fatally shot suspects who threatened them with weapons.

The officers claimed they qualified for protection under Marsy’s Law because they were assaulted by the people they shot. As victims, they argued, they were entitled to prevent the release of their personal identifying information including their names.

According to court documents, a grand jury investigated both shootings and found the officers’ use of force to be justified.

The union filed an emergency injunction to prevent the officers’ names from being disclosed to reporters. Although a trial court denied the petition and ordered that the names be released, a lower appeals court later sided with the union.

On Thursday, the Florida high court ruled that Marsy’s Law protects victims’ interests only by prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information or other records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or their family. It does not guarantee victims the right to remain anonymous, the opinion says.

According to the ruling, a person’s name “communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered.”

“It is one thing to identify a person," Couriel wrote, "and another altogether to locate or harass him or her.”

Florida law already prohibits the disclosure of police officers’ addresses and other identifying information.

Jennifer Fennell, a spokeswoman for the group Marsy's Law for Florida, said the justices’ decision “that this be applied very generally to all crime victims is disappointing, especially as they recognize in this same ruling that certain categories of victims have the right to prevent the public disclosure of their names."

"With the technology available in today's day and age, it defies common logic that access to a victim's name cannot be used to locate or harass that victim," Fennell said in a statement.

Couriel noted that Thursday’s ruling does not prevent the state legislature from expanding the law to exempt other information from public disclosure in the future.

The court also pointed out that a law explicitly providing for the concealment of victims’ identities could run afoul of criminal defendants’ constitutional right to confront their accusers in most circumstances. A victim’s identity is “often critical to the force and integrity” of cross-examination, Couriel wrote, because it can help determine bias or credibility.

An attorney for the News Media Coalition, a group of international news outlets advocating for press freedom that intervened in the case, called the decision “a win for government transparency.”

“The court applied a common sense approach to interpreting Marsy’s Law that reins in overzealous applications that hide newsworthy information from the public,” attorney Mark Caramanica of Thomas & LoCicero said in a statement on behalf of the Coalition. “In this case, the issues could not have been weightier and the court’s ruling prevents police officers from shielding their names when on-duty shootings occur.”

Luke Newman, a Tallahassee attorney who represents the police union, expressed disappointment with the decision on Thursday. “We feel it was wrongly decided,” Newman said in an emailed statement.

Chief Justice Carlos Muniz was joined by Justices Charles Canady, Jamie Grosshans and Renatha Francis in concurring with the court’s opinion. Justice Jorge Labarga concurred in result only and Justice Meredith Sasso did not participate.

Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit