Names of Florida officers involved in fatal shootings should not be kept secret | Opinion
The Florida Supreme Court recently made the right decision in refusing to apply Marsy’s Law to allow police departments across the state to keep secret the names of officers involved in fatal shootings. The court’s November ruling upheld the spirit of open government.
However, now the Florida Legislature is looking to circumvent the ruling with House Bill 1605 and House Bill 1607.
The bills, sponsored by State Rep. Robert Charles Brannan III (R-Jacksonville) and currently in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, would allow the names of officers in fatal shootings to remain secret for five years. That would run counter to the Supreme Court ruling.
Lawmakers should respect the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue. But, if this bill is any indication, they may not.
Keeping officer’s names secret can only further damage the relationship between police and the public. That’s a given.
Unfortunately, Marsy’s Law, a 2018 state constitutional amendment aimed to bolster victim rights, is being warped by police unions, who want to declare officers “victims” of crimes when they are involved in violent incidents on the job. They then claim that Marsy’s Law allows them to keep their identities secret.
That means an officer who kills, justly or unjustly, will not face the kind of public scrutiny that should be an absolute requirement.
One reason for that: If the media or the public in general does not know officers’ names, reporters and others will not be able to examine an officer’s personnel file to see their record — if they have killed before, or have a problematic history dealing with the public.
If passed, this bill would only reduce transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
In a post-George Floyd-era, when the actions of police officers rightly have been spotlighted, laws that shield officers from public identification seem ill-conceived at best. Police officers are entrusted with enormous responsibility — guns and badges and the right to detain people. When they fire a gun on the job, the citizens who employ them must have the right to know who they are and what their previous record says about them.
As the Supreme Court ruled, “Marsy’s Law guarantees to no victim — police officer or otherwise — the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.”
The ruling sprang from two separate incidents in 2020 involving Tallahassee police officers who fatally shot armed suspects who were threatening them. They sought to have their names kept out of public records, saying they qualified as victims because they were assaulted by the people they shot. The officers were later cleared by a grand jury.
This is not the only bill moving through the Legislature this session that could chip away at the necessary transparency of police work. Another bill calls for the disbanding of all of the state’s civilian review panels, another bad idea.
Civilian review panels, as we have said before, help address any perceived bias when internal police investigations look only at officers’ perspectives. Independent boards foster transparency and fairness in the disciplinary process, too. Without them, it would be too easy for problems to remain unaddressed. Lawmakers need to reject HB 601.
Similarly, the push to keep police officers’ names secret in the case of fatal shootings must also be rejected. We believe that when an officer takes a life through lethal force, the public has a basic right to know the name of the officer and the circumstances.
While we support law enforcement and acknowledge the difficult job they do, we cannot condone laws that reduce police transparency and accountability.
When the identities of officers in fatal encounters are kept hidden, it suggests that police have something to hide. It fosters a dangerous environment where officers may feel less accountable, knowing they can avoid public scrutiny and questions.
Law enforcement agencies should welcome transparency, not resist it. When will they ever learn?
Click here to send the letter.
