From the Legal Hotline (1-877-NEWS-LAW)
Q. I am hoping you can point me in the direction of the current contact at the First Amendment Foundation. I am hoping they can assist in mediating an ongoing records dispute involving our sheriff’s department. The sheriff is: 1) refusing to cite exemptions for redactions made; 2) refusing in most cases to provide the location of crimes (location information is being redacted without exemption being claimed) and 3) erroneously claiming that the locations of crimes are forever exempt from disclosure if the initial call came from 911.
My efforts to resolve the matter have not resulted in any measure of success.
A. You can try Bobby Block, FAF Executive Director. bblock@floridafaf.org; (321)794-7776. However, FAF has limited resources and probably will not be able to mediate the dispute. Unfortunately, your issue is becoming increasingly common in Florida and the only definite way to force compliance of an intransigent agency is through a lawsuit. There are firms that will take on such a case because there may be attorney fees available, but they are few and far between.
That said, here are some arguments regarding the 3 areas you point out–
Regarding point 1, if you haven’t already, you might remind the sheriff’s office that the public records law (section 119.07(1)(e), F.S.) requires the office to state the basis for the exemption, including the statutory citation to the exemption. Additionally, upon request, the office must state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or confidential. Section 119.07(1)(f).
Regarding point 2 on crime location, again, they must provide the basis for redacting/exempting the crime location. Further, note that “the time, date, location, and nature of a reported crime” is not considered to be criminal investigative or intelligence information and must be released unless some other exemption applies. Section 119.011(3)(c), F.S. [There is other information that does not fall within the definition of criminal intelligence or criminal investigative information including: “name, sex, age, and address of a person arrested; name, sex, age, and address of the victim of a crime; time, date and location of the incident and of the arrest; and crime charged”].
If they are relying on Marsy’s Law to redact crime locations to keep secret victim id information, such authority has been limited by the recent Fla. Supreme Court ruling that Marsy’s Law alone does not protect the identities of crime victims from public disclosure.
Regarding point 3 concerning crime locations originating from 911 calls–the 911 (emergency call) exemption applies only to the name, address, telephone number or personal information about or information which may identify any person requesting emergency services or reporting an emergency while such information is in the custody of the agency. Section 365.171(12)(a).
Identifying information obtained or created independently of the 911 call, for example from a criminal investigation or offense report created as a result of such investigation, is not exempt.
Finally, a tape recording of a “911” call is a public record which is subject to disclosure after the deletion of the exempt information.
Q. Are there any new/updated requirements for elections officials like supervisors of elections—and the notices posted by government officials in newspapers (and online) such as notice of elections and whether there are specific requirements for such.
A. There were several changes contained in the 98-page reform bill, passed two years ago in 2023, making several SOE newspaper notices optional (unfortunately, despite our opposition). These notices can now (as an alternative to newspaper notice) be provided by publishing notice on the division’s website, on the county’s website as provided in s. 50.0311, or on the supervisor’s website, as deemed appropriate by the supervisor. The notices include: those relating to voter signature and registration information; Dept. of State notices stating offices and vacancies to be filled in the general election in each county; DOS notices to county supervisors of special elections to fill any vacancy; notice of special election or referendum; notice of time and place of testing of tabulating equipment; notice of movement of polling places; notice of rescheduled election due to emergency; and notice of canvassing board members, alternates, and place where county canvassing board shall meet.
Q. Our city commission does not stream or allow video recording of their meetings or workshops. Can they stop us from making a video ourselves, or streaming it via Facebook? The city told me I couldn’t video at a recent meeting or stream if I did so. I find this strange because our county streams all their public meetings and the county manager even texted me asking if our paper would be live-streaming the workshop because several county commissioners aren’t able to attend. I suggested the county manager put a bug in the city manager’s ear that we really would like to stream this upcoming workshop. It involves a massive development (for our area) and I feel like it is extremely important in the early stages for the public to be informed. I am starting to think the city commission thinks a camera may steal their soul or some such nonsense as much as they object to them.
A. The commission can adopt reasonable policies for the orderly conduct of their meetings, but I don’t think they can ban non-disruptive recording devices (which appears to be the case with your reporter). Here is some support for this: Pinellas County School Board v. Suncam, Inc., 829 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (school board’s ban on unobtrusive videotaping invalid). Also, AGO 91-28. And see AGO 77-122 (silent nondisruptive tape recording of district meeting permissible).
I am not sure about streaming it on your Facebook page. I know that other small cities in Florida do live stream their meetings on their own website which seems like a reasonable option for your town.
I asked Jim MacGuire at Thomas & LoCicero about this, and he agrees that unobtrusive video recording of a public meeting should be permitted, absent some highly unusual circumstances. Regarding live-streaming meetings, it seems to him that if someone is permitted to video record the public meeting, they certainly would then have the right to post it online. If the recording of the meeting can be posted online, there is no substantive distinction between recording and then posting versus live streaming.
It would, however, not be surprising if the commission viewed it differently. So, Jim suggests the paper might try to record and/or stream. If the paper tries to livestream, and the commission tells you stop, you have a few choices: (1) stop and do nothing more, (2) stop and file a lawsuit, (3) don’t stop – but run the risk of getting arrested (which would set the issue up for resolution by a court).
Q. Can I take a city’s public notice, post it on my website to satisfy the notice timing and then follow in print on the next available date?
A. I think the digital publication satisfies the timing requirement if your website is the “publicly accessible website” established pursuant to s. 50.0311. But if newspaper/print notice is still specifically required, this would pull in the printed time requirements. So, I think the law is unclear. I would just take the general position that if the city/county is using your website as the s. 50.0311 website, and your digital component complies with the time requirements for the notice, that should apply. As you indicate, the print notice is just for added reach.