From the Legal Hotline (1-877-NEWS-LAW)

Q. I’m curious; when did it become the rule that the media can’t get crash reports until 10 days after the crash? I remember the delay for those who weren’t victims of the crash, but I thought there was an exception for the media. We had a horrific bicycles vs. pickup crash over the weekend and are being told by FHP to wait 10 days for the report.

A. Media, including newspapers such as yours, can request immediate access to Florida vehicle crash reports under s. 316.066 provided you submit a sworn statement confirming you are not using the data for commercial solicitation and other information. The agency (FHSMV/FHP) must redact certain information such as home or employment street addresses, driver license or identification card numbers, dates of birth, and home and employment telephone numbers of the parties involved in the crash.

While you can request immediate access, the problem is that the agency has said reports may be held up to allow for redaction of the allowed information and perhaps other information relating to victim ids. While some delay may be unavoidable, consider asking FHP if a blanket 10-day delay is warranted where the crash involves numerous injuries and potential road safety issues.

Q. Are there any rules we need to know about regarding advertising ketamine therapy?

A. Ketamine is a tightly regulated Schedule III controlled substance that requires a prescription. It is usually used as a general anesthetic but is also prescribed “off-label” to treat depression usually via infusions at clinics. Ketamine is legal in Florida if it is used for an approved medical purpose and is prescribed by a licensed physician, and clinics throughout the state administer ketamine infusions legally, following strict safety standards.

That said, online marketing for ketamine treatments is a high-risk landscape. Paid advertisements often utilize “treatment-resistant” promises that draw regulatory attention. A recent study of clinics in Maryland indicates that several advertisers failed to disclose potential adverse effects, falsely stating ketamine is not addictive, or that ketamine was FDA approved to treat depression. Some did not disclose that their advertised services represent off-label use of ketamine. Notably, Google Ads and Facebook have strict policies regarding advertising by ketamine therapy clinics.

As a result, I think it is good practice to review online marketing campaigns/ads for “red flag” language, for example–

• No aggressive marketing hooks, including promises to “cure” a patient’s depression, provide “immediate relief,” or “guarantee results.”
• Watch for description of the risks of ketamine therapy. FDA has not approved ketamine specifically for depression treatment (aside from esketamine) so claims that ketamine infusion therapy is “FDA-approved” or “FDA-cleared” is misleading. Using evidence-based descriptions, rather than promising outcomes, is best.
• Patient testimonials and influencer partnerships should not exaggerate or provide incomplete information about the risks. Dramatic improvements should be balanced with disclaimers (individual results can vary).

In this case, I don’t see any enforcement actions against this particular advertiser. It appears to be a legitimate company registered in Florida and staffed by licensed professionals. I’m not an expert in all the nuances of infusion clinic rules, but skimming over the website, nothing jumps out as misleading. I think running ads using some of the website language seems fairly low risk. However, if they have individual ads apart from the website that seem questionable, I’m glad to look at those.

Q. We received a “formal” request to remove a person’s arrest information (name, charge information, arrest date, etc.) on our crime blotter page because the “charge in question was dismissed, and the record is currently in the process of being expunged…and constitutes a serious and ongoing invasion of privacy.”

Will you give me some reading items to better educate myself on these requests?

I cannot confirm with the courthouse any of their allegations that the trespassing case was dismissed because the case was sealed by the FDLE per the clerk’s office.

My inclination is to — if they are able to provide records of the case being dismissed — to update the crime blotter listing with a note that the charge was dismissed on a certain date.

Arrests are a matter of record and the fact that the arrest was made is not in dispute. Providing a note on the disposition, if those records are made available to us, seems sufficient and fair to me.

A.I agree with your approach. There is no legal requirement to take down truthful information—as you note, the arrest did happen and it is part of the factual record. Updating with a note seems sufficient. Here is a white paper I did a while back that goes into this in more detail and hopefully it will be helpful.

Also, here are some sample guidelines from a newspaper in California I looked at several years ago. I would not recommend formally adopting any guidelines, but they do give you an idea of how other papers handle requests.