Florida Supreme Court rules Marsy's Law privacy doesn't apply to police officers

In a sweeping decision with major ramifications for police accountability across the state, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Marsy's Law can't be used to shield the identities of police officers who use deadly force.

The conservative high court, in a 6-0 decision issued Thursday, opined that Marsy’s Law, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2018 that granted a number of rights to crime victims, doesn't guarantee anonymity for police officers — or any 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," the court opined. "No such right is enumerated in the text of article I, section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution."

The ruling marked a major victory for First Amendment advocates, who argued that police officers — imbued by the government with the power to arrest and use lethal force — aren’t entitled to confidentiality for their on-duty conduct.

Mark Caramanica, a Tampa attorney representing media outlets, 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," he said. "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.”

The dispute grew out of two separate incidents in 2020 involving Tallahassee police officers who fatally shot armed suspects who were threatening them. The officers were later cleared by a grand jury.

"Marsy’s Law does not preclude the city from releasing the names of the two police officers whose conduct is at issue in this case," the court wrote. "We quash the decision of the First District Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision."

The legal battle began after the city of Tallahassee announced plans to publicly release the officers’ names. The Police Benevolent Association sued, arguing that the officers themselves were victims of a crime and thus were entitled to Marsy’s Law protections.

The city, which was joined by a coalition of media outlets including the USA TODAY NETWORK - Florida and the Tallahassee Democrat, prevailed initially, with then-Circuit Judge Charles Dodson ruling in 2020 that the public had a “vital right” to evaluate the conduct of law enforcement and that Marsy’s Law was never intended to grant officers confidentiality.

However, the 1st District Court of Appeal reversed Dodson’s decision, putting the case before the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments nearly a year ago on Dec. 7, 2022.

Luke Newman, an attorney for the PBA, said the police union was in touch with the two officers, currently known as John Doe 1 and 2, to prepare them for the public release of their names.

"I'm disappointed, and I feel like it was wrongly decided," Newman said of the decision.

Marsy’s Law, which won with 61% approval of the voters, was sold to the public as the Florida Crime Victims Bill of Rights. It gave crime victims numerous new rights, including notification of upcoming court proceedings and the ability to speak out during hearings. It also granted victims “the right to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim” or their family.

The Supreme Court addressed that issue directly, writing, "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' ... do not encompass the victim’s identity."

The opinion was authored by Justice John Couriel, with Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, Jamie Grosshans and Renatha Francis concurring. Justice Jorge Labarga concurred in the result only, and Justice Meredith Sasso didn't participate in the ruling.

After its passage, law enforcement agencies across Florida began redacting the names of crime victims and in some cases the places where crimes occurred. They also stopped providing names of officers involved in deadly encounters with suspects and in some cases took down videos involving police use of force.

The PBA argued that both of the Tallahassee police officers were victims of aggravated assault when they encountered the two suspects, Tony McDade and Wilbon Woodard. McDade, a Black transgender man who stabbed a neighbor’s son to death before raising a gun at an officer, became a rallying cry by some in the Black Lives Matter movement after he was killed May 27, 2020, two days after George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police.

Lawyers for the media argued that what Marsy’s Law was designed to protect “simply falls away” because the victims in the case killed their victimizers. The media coalition include the First Amendment Foundation, the Florida Press Association, the McClatchy Company, the New York Times and Gannett, owner of the Democrat.

Marsy’s Law was first enacted in a 2008 voter referendum in California. It has since passed in 16 other states. The national Marsy's Law for All organization reversed its previous position and announced in October that it didn't believe Marsy's Law should shield the identities of on-duty officers who use physical force, saying "the right to privacy of their name must quickly yield to the public’s right to know."

Contact Jeff Burlew at jburlew@tallahassee.com or 850-599-2180.

This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida police using deadly force not protected by Marsy's Law