City of Tallahassee v. Florida Police Benevolent Association

What this case is about

In May 2020, two Tallahassee police officers were involved in separate fatal shootings. Each officer said the suspect attacked first, before the officer used deadly force. Under Florida's standard public-records law, the City of Tallahassee planned to release the officers' names. The Florida Police Benevolent Association sued on the officers' behalf. Its argument: under Florida's Marsy's Law amendment to the state constitution, an officer who is a crime victim can keep his or her name confidential.

The trial court sided with the city. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and held that Marsy's Law shielded the names. The Florida Supreme Court took the case (docket SC2021-0651) to settle the question.

On November 30, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the First DCA. It held that Marsy's Law gives no victim, civilian or officer, a categorical right to keep their name out of records a government agency releases. The city was free to release the names.

What the court held

Article I, Section 16(b)–(e) of the Florida Constitution, added by Marsy's Law in 2018, gives every crime victim 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."

The PBA read that to cover the victim's name. The court read it more narrowly. A name on its own is not "information or records that could be used to locate or harass" the victim. The provision targets details like home addresses, phone numbers, and work locations, not the bare fact of who someone is.

Marsy's Law passed against Florida's strong public-records tradition. The court held that letting every victim, including an officer in a public-duty shooting, block release of a name would swallow that tradition, and that the constitutional text did not require it.

The ruling leaves other privacy tools in place. Florida's public-records exemptions in § 119.071 still cover home addresses, phone numbers, and similar locating details for law enforcement and several other categories of public employees. What the court removed was the categorical name-blocking shield the lower court had read into Marsy's Law.

Why this matters to first responders

Florida agencies can no longer use Marsy's Law to refuse to release an officer's name after a use-of-force incident. Press releases that name the officer are back on standard public-records footing.

Broker feeds that scrape press releases and court filings get the same input they always did. The officer's name appears in the release, and brokers pipe it into people-search pages. The address exemptions under § 119.071 still help, but the name is in play.

If you are a Florida officer involved in a use-of-force incident, expect the agency to release your name unless a separate statutory exemption applies. Ask your union rep or counsel which Florida exemptions cover your situation.

What it doesn't reach

A few limits the court did not disturb:

• Address and phone protections under § 119.071 still apply. Florida law provides public-records exemptions for the home addresses, phone numbers, and photographs of law enforcement officers, firefighters, judges, prosecutors, and several other categories. Those statutes were not before the court.
• Marsy's Law still protects locating information. The court read the text narrowly but did not strike it down. Information that could be used to find or harass the victim is still covered. The dispute is over what counts.
• It does not reach federal records. PACER filings, federal indictments, and federal civil suits run on their own access rules.
• It does not change broker liability. If your name and address are on a broker site, the remedy is the federal DPPA — the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which limits how personal information from state DMV records can be released and used — where the data came from a DMV record, plus any state analogs. Florida has no close equivalent to New Jersey's Daniel's Law, which lets officers force data brokers to take down their home address and phone. Florida's Digital Bill of Rights reaches only the largest tech platforms, not the brokers that list officer addresses.

Downstream impact

The decision removed the broad Marsy's Law shield Florida agencies had applied after the First DCA ruling. With that shield gone, an agency can once again release an officer's name in a use-of-force press release unless a separate statutory exemption applies.

North Dakota and South Dakota adopted Marsy's Law with the same broad wording Florida used, which is why officers in those three states have been able to invoke it to withhold their names. Each state's text and case law differ. Florida's reading does not bind courts in North Dakota or South Dakota, but the reasoning may prove persuasive if the question reaches them.

Where the protection falls short

For officers who hoped Marsy's Law would do the work of a Daniel's Law in Florida, this case is a setback. It does not. The category-by-category public-records exemptions in § 119.071 do most of the privacy work for Florida law enforcement. They cover home address, phone, photograph, and similar locating details. They do not cover the officer's name.

If you are outside Florida, do not assume your state's Marsy's Law analog gives you a name-blocking right. Most do not. Read the actual text and the state supreme court's reading of it before you rely on it.

Sources

• Justia (full opinion): law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2023/sc2021-0651.html
• State Court Report case tracker: statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/tallahassee-v-florida-police-benevolent-association

What we do here

Florida officers often find broker listings built from a name in a public release and an address pulled from county property records. Frontline Privacy files removals under the statutes that reach those listings, including § 119.071 for the home address and phone and the federal DPPA where the data came from a DMV record.