FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST POLICE, SAYS MARSY’S LAW DOES NOT SHIELD IDENTITY OF OFFICERS INVOLVED IN SHOOTINGS…
NO GUARANTEE THAT A CRIME VICTIM CAN HIDE IDENTITY. 6-0 RULING AGAINST MARSY’S LAW PROVISIONS.
BY: ANDREW COLTON | Editor and Publisher
BOCA RATON, FL (BocaNewsNow.com) (Copyright © 2023 MetroDesk Media, LLC) — The Florida Supreme Court, in a surprisingly strong ruling late Thursday, declared much of Marsy’s Law to be unenforceable in the State of Florida. The 6-0 ruling struck down two major elements: the ability for police to shield their identifies when involved in shootings or other violent actions by claiming that they were victims. And the universal declaration that all crime victims may have their identities withheld.
The decision stems from two incidents in Tallahassee where police were involved in shootings. When the media attempted to identity the officers involved, the Florida Police Benevolent Association argued that the officers were actually the crime victims which is what led to the shootings. The PBA argued that their identities were to be shielded under the Marsy’s Law provisions. A lower court sided with the PBA. In its just-out appellate ruling, the Florida Supreme Court said “no.”
Marsy’s Law has had chilling impact on coverage of crimes. BocaNewsNow.com famously did battle with the Boca Raton Police Department following the shooting of Jordan Thompson outside the Barnes And Noble near FAU on Glades Road in 2022. The Boca Raton Police Department hid the officers’ names, until BocaNewsNow.com obtained — and published — the information. Boca PD claimed the identities were shielded under Marsy’s law. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement ultimately released a photo of one of the officers in a report obtained by BocaNewsNow.com.
The ruling also states that an alleged crime victim is not automatically guaranteed anonymity — reminding that the accused has a right to face an accuser. Said the Florida Supreme Court, knowing a victim’s identity is not the same as knowing where that person is.
We are publishing the entire ruling, below. Here are three key elements that represent how strongly justices ruled against Marsy’s Law provisions — while also noting that a change to the Florida Constitution could lead to their reinstatement.
COURT: NO GUARANTEE FOR CRIME VICTIMS TO WITHHOLD NAME:
“Applying these interpretive principles to this case, we conclude that Marsy’s Law does not guarantee to a victim the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure. In their ordinary and plain usage, the relevant words of our Constitution, “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,” art. I, § 16(b)(5), Fla. Const., do not encompass the victim’s identity.”
COURT: HIDING A NAME AND HIDING A VICTIM’S LOCATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
“Fairly read, the text does no such thing. For it is one thing to identify a person and another altogether to locate or harass5 him or her. “Widely circulated dictionaries are helpful for identifying the plain meaning of constitutional language.” Lee Mem’l Health Sys. v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., 260 So. 3d 1038, 1043 (Fla. 2018). To “identify” a person is to “fix the identity of” him or her. Identify, Webster’s New World College Dictionary 722 (5th ed. 2018). But to “locate” a person is to “establish [that he or she is] in a certain place.” Locate, Webster’s New World College Dictionary 855 (5th ed. 2018). 6 To “identify” someone, then, is to distinguish him or her from other persons; to “locate” that person is to determine his or her physical whereabouts. The “information or records” from section 16(b)(5) that could be used to accomplish the former are not necessarily the same as those that could be used to accomplish the latter. 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. Art. I, § 16(b)(5), Fla. Const. 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.”
COURT: NO RIGHT TO ANONYMITY.
“Today’s decision neither weakens these various exemptions of certain information from public disclosure, nor prevents the Legislature—in performing the constitutional function reserved to it and not to us—from expanding them. Our decision instead is limited to the determination that Marsy’s Law does not guarantee to crime victims a generalized right of anonymity”
