Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The memoranda were transmitted to this Court under seal, although they also appear in a separate portion of the record on appeal that is not under seal. Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, makes broad provision for agency records to be made available to the public. The exemption that is provided by statute is set forth in section 119.071(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2006), which provides: A public record that was prepared by an agency (including an attorney employed or retained by the agency or employed or retained by another public officer or agency to protect or repres...

...The public records act "is to be construed liberally in favor of openness, and all exemptions from disclosure are to *333 be construed narrowly and limited in their designated purpose." City of Riviera Beach v. Barfield, 642 So.2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Under section 119.071, the State has the burden of showing that the Dyehouse memoranda fall within the statutory requirements....

...g litigation. As in Kearse, the letter here was written by an agency attorney, contained his mental impressions about the claims raised in the postconviction motion, and was produced exclusively for the pending evidentiary hearing as contemplated in section 119.071(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because of his mental impairments and his age at the time of the crime; and (3) Florida's capital sentencing procedure deprived Evans of due process rights to notice and a jury trial under Ring and Apprendi. [13] Section 119.071(1)(d) exempts the following records from disclosure: A public record that was prepared by an agency attorney ......

...Finally, Kearse argues that a letter the assistant state attorney sent to Kearse's trial counsel regarding the ineffective assistance claims against him in the postconviction proceedings is not privileged work product. The State responds that under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2005), the letter is exempt from disclosure as work product prepared in anticipation of litigation....

...After hearing argument, the trial court ruled that given the nature of the witness—Kearse's trial counsel—in a postconviction proceeding and that trial counsel was listed as a witness for the State as well as the defense, the letter was work product not subject to disclosure. Section 119.071(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), provides as follows in pertinent part: *989 (d)1....

...was prepared exclusively for civil or criminal litigation or for adversarial administrative proceedings, or that was prepared in anticipation of imminent civil or criminal litigation or imminent adversarial administrative proceedings, is exempt from s. 119.071(1) and s....

...e or imposition of a life sentence. The assistant state attorney's letter containing his mental impressions about the case clearly fits within the exemption of attorney work product prepared with regard to the ongoing postconviction proceedings. See § 119.071(1)(d), Fla....

...As in Kearse, the letter here was written by an agency attorney, contained his mental impressions about the claims raised in the postconviction motion, and was produced exclusively for the pending evidentiary hearing as contemplated in section 119.071(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...Demings, the Sheriff of Orange County, in his official capacity and as the records custodian of *420 the MBI, declined to release the tapes unless the faces of the undercover officers were obscured. The issue both below and on appeal is a narrow one. When public records, otherwise exempt from disclosure under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2008), have been disclosed during discovery to a criminal defendant, is the government precluded from asserting applicable statutory exemptions from disclosure in a subsequent public records action? We answer in the negative and affirm....

...The Sheriff filed a motion for summary judgment, conceding that the 2004 recordings are public records and are not relevant to any active criminal investigation. However, relying on several exemptions from disclosure relating to law enforcement personnel and surveillance techniques contained in section 119.071, the Sheriff argued that the faces of the MBI agents should be obscured....

...d. The trial court granted summary final judgment in favor of the Sheriff, concluding that the Sheriff was authorized to "obscure the faces" of all the undercover MBI officers prior to producing the recordings pursuant to the exemptions contained in section 119.071(4)(c) and (4)(d)....

...The government has the burden to demonstrate the applicability of a statutory exemption. Weeks v. Golden, 764 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The Sheriff contends that the identities of the undercover law enforcement personnel must be obscured under section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), which exempts "[a]ny information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel...." section 119.071(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), which exempts "[a]ny information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency..."; and/or section 119.071(4)(d)1.a., which exempts "[t]he home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel...." Cleo's contends that while these exemptions may have been applicable to the...

...to be given to the person arrested...." Our sister courts' decisions in Salcines v. Tampa Television, 454 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 698 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), demonstrate the continued viability of the exemptions contained in section 119.071 to protect the identity of undercover law enforcement personnel, even if that information may already be public....

...[4] *423 Here, the defendant dancers may have been entitled to unredacted versions of the surveillance recordings in preparing their defenses under rule 3.220. However, we see no reason why such forced disclosure should transform otherwise exempt material into public information when the specific exemptions contained in section 119.071 are considered....

...ublic disclosure of such information. We hold that the disclosure to a criminal defendant during discovery of unredacted versions of undercover police surveillance recordings does not destroy, in a public records context, the exemptions contained in section 119.071 for information relating to the identity of undercover law enforcement personnel....

...[4] As Cleo's argues, several cases hold that some public records exemptions no longer apply after the information has been disclosed under the rules of discovery. For instance, an exemption exists for "active criminal intelligence information" and "active criminal investigative information." § 119.071(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008); see § 119.071(2)(h), Fla....

...At the urging of the Consolidated Rules Committee, with the support of the Access Subcommittee and the Florida Public Defender Association, we have included a provision that requires that a subdivision (f)(3) motion be treated as confidential pending a ruling on the motion or until otherwise ordered by the court. Cf. §§ 119.071(2)(c); 119.071(2)(f); 119.0714(1)(f), Fla....

...ation of parental rights, guardians ad litem, child abuse, neglect, and abandonment. § 39.0132(3), Fla. Stat. (ii) Adoption records. § 63.162, Fla. Stat. (iii) Social Security, bank account, charge, debit, and credit card numbers in court records. § 119.0714(1)(i)-(j), (2)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (Unless redaction is requested pursuant to 119.0714(2), this information is exempt only as of January 1, 2011.) (iv) HIV test results and patient identity within those test results....

...(xi) Estate inventories and accountings. § 733.604(1), Fla. Stat. (xii) The victim's address in a domestic violence action on petitioner's request. § 741.30(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (xiii) Information identifying victims of sexual offenses, including child sexual abuse. §§ 119.071(2)(h), 119.0714(1)(h), Fla....

...(If the document is filed within a Chapter 39 case, this form is not required.) _____ Adoption records. § 63.162, Fla. Stat. (If the document is filed within a Chapter 63 adoption case, this form is not required.) _____ Social Security, bank account, charge, debit, and credit card numbers in court records. § 119.0714(1)(i)-(j), (2)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (Unless redaction is requested pursuant to § 119.0714(2), this information is exempt only as of January 1, 2011.) _____ HIV test results and patient identity within the HIV test results....

..._____ Estate inventories and accountings. § 733.604(1), Fla. Stat. _____ Victim's address in domestic violence action on petitioner's request. § 741.30(3)(b), Fla. Stat. _____ Information identifying victims of sexual offenses, including child sexual abuse. §§ 119.071(2)(h), 119.0714(1)(h), Fla....

...e amendment. [23] See supra note 11. [24] See Privacy Report at 63. [25] Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d) provides the procedure for seeking review of orders granting or denying access to court records. [26] See 954 So.2d at 23 n. 13. [27] See §§ 119.071(2)(c) (public records exemption for active criminal investigative information); 119.071(2)(f) (public records exemption for information revealing the identity of a confidential informant); 119.0714(1)(f) (application of section 119.071(2)(f) to court files), Fla....

...ugh BSO is not required to record the phone calls, it does so for legitimate security reasons and doing so makes the recordings a public record. The court concluded an exemption to the records request may apply if recordings include any confessions. § 119.071(2)(e), Fla....

...requirement be filed instead. [29] The family law rules of procedure forms are amended to conform with the amendments to the family law rules. Additionally, the instructions to several of the rules forms and approved forms are amended to conform to section 119.071(2)(j)(1), Florida Statutes (2010), which was enacted to protect the confidentiality of victims of domestic violence, sexual battery, aggravated child abuse, aggravated stalking, and aggravated battery....

...ply with constitutional requirements. Thus section 406.135 does not render these court exhibits confidential. If any statute accomplishes that act, it must be a provision in chapter 119. IV. CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES (2005) The State argues that section 119.071(2)(h) provides the necessary exemption....

...ubsection (1) a public record that was made a part of a court file and that is not specifically closed by order of court, except . . . information or records that may reveal the identity of a person who is a victim of a sexual offense as provided in s. 119.071(2)(h)....

...Thus, because the photographs at issue in this case are part of a court file, they are not exempt unless they fall within the exception described in section 119.07(6) concerning records that reveal the identity of a victim. The records at issue in the trial court may come within the description in section 119.071(2)(h)(2), but they do not come within the description in section 119.071(2)(h)(1)....

...Council of Fla. on Privacy & Elec. Access to Court Records, 832 So.2d 712, 713 (Fla.2002). Yet, this access is not so broad that it is completely unfettered. Access to public records is subject to various statutory conditions and exemptions. See, e.g., § 119.071, Fla....

...e requested juvenile offense report to Harvard. Lastly, we address Harvard’s claim that she is entitled to a copy of her son’s videotaped interview. Contrary to Harvard’s assertion that there is no law prohibiting her from obtaining the video, section 119.071(2)(h)l.a-c, Florida Statutes (2009), provides that a video of a victim is exempt from a public records request if it is taken during the course of one of several enumerated types of criminal investigations....

...However, this Court has recognized a records custodian’s duty to redact exempted portions of public records before they are released. Morris Publ’g Grp., LLC v. State of Fla., 154 So. 3d 528, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). There are numerous categories of records that are exempt from disclosure in a public records request. §119.071(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes (“Social security numbers held by an agency are confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.”); §119.071(5)(b), Florida Statutes....

...ers or of those who have violated the alarm ordinance. The information CIS seeks would allow it and others to know which businesses and residences are protected by security systems and which are not. The City responds *1196 that sections 281.301 and 119.071, Florida Statutes (2004), preclude disclosure of this information....

...ll meetings relating directly to or that would reveal such systems or information are confidential and exempt from ss. 119.07(1) and 286.011 and other laws and rules requiring public access or disclosure. The exemption was clarified and recreated in section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2001). Ch. 01-361, § 1, at 32, Laws of Fla. Section 119.071, as amended, provides, in relevant part: A security system plan or portion thereof for: (1) Any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions; or (2) Any privately owned or leased property which plan or portion thereof is held by any agency, as defined in s....

...such as telecommunications, on which the public relies," and the "need to protect public and private infrastructure from terrorist attack." Op. Att'y Gen. 04-28 at 3. We agree with the Attorney General that the plain language of sections 281.301 and 119.071 makes confidential all records revealing a security system because [o]ne of the most fundamental rules of statutory construction is that a court must give a statutory term its plain and ordinary meaning....

..., or dispatches of law enforcement for verified or false alarms. The disclosure of the names and addresses contained in the specified records would necessarily reveal the existence of security systems. Op. Att'y Gen. 04-28 at 3. Sections 281.301 and 119.071 prohibit public disclosure of the names and addresses of applicants for security system permits, of persons cited for violations of alarm ordinances, and of individuals who are the subject of law enforcement dispatch reports for verified or false alarms because disclosure would imperil the safety of persons and property....

...Due process mandates it. We also deny the petition as to the other portion of the order and require that there be an unredacted disclosure to the public and third parties. As to the public disclosure, first, the state did not preserve any argument regarding section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2018) ; second, this case does not involve a public records request under section 119.071 ; third, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the state did not meet its burden to justify closure; and finally, there is a common law "right to access" judicial records where the state has failed to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in non-disclosure....

...This court stayed the release of the unredacted documents pending our certiorari review. The state argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the release of privileged surveillance techniques that are not subject to public disclosure under section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes....

...nt case. I. PRESERVATION, JURISDICTION, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Initially, the state did not preserve the arguments raised in its petition. During the proceedings below, the state did not specifically assert a "surveillance technique privilege" under section 119.071(2)(d) or cite to any chapter 119 exemption....

...pelling governmental interest," referring to rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(iii). 2 The state did not argue any other grounds for closure under rule 2.420. Further, at no point did the state put the trial court on *1066 notice that it was in any way relying on section 119.071....

...he state argues that the redacted information contains "surveillance techniques not widely known to the public." However, rule 2.420 does not recognize a surveillance technique exception. Nor is the "not widely known to the public" language found in section 119.071(2)(d), upon which the state now relies....

...orded by the judge in his order granting or refusing closure." Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis , 426 So.2d 1 , 7-8 (Fla. 1982). In this case, the state did not offer any evidence that the redacted information contained "surveillance techniques" under section 119.071(2)(d) nor did the state demonstrate that the alleged surveillance techniques were "not widely known." Therefore, there is no record upon which the state can rely....

...5th DCA 2010) (applying chapter 119 in the context of a public records request to the sheriff, an agency under chapter 119). The state conflates records that are exempt under chapter 119 with records that are confidential under rule 2.420. The state relies on section 119.071(2)(d), which states: "Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution." Contrary to the state's suggestion, the judiciary has not adopted section 119.071(2)(d) via rule 2.420(c). Chapter 119 speaks to both "exempt" records and records which are "confidential *1070 and exempt." Section 119.071(2)(d) only makes surveillance techniques exempt , not confidential and exempt. In contrast, rule 2.420(c)(9)(A) adopts certain laws pertaining to confidential records. Therefore, it does not adopt section 119.071(2)(d)....

...of Seminole , 874 So.2d 48 , 53-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Further, rule 2.420 contains specific references to chapter 119 when exemptions under that chapter apply. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B), 2.420(d)(1)(B)(iii), (xiii). Had rule 2.420(c) intended to incorporate section 119.071(2)(d), it would have included a specific reference to that section....

...Within this claim, Brad-dy argues that' the postconviction court erred in denying him access to public records under section 119.19 and rule. 3.852, namely: (1) certain materials in sealed box 6202 that were purportedly claimed to be exempt by the Miami-Dade State. Attorney under the work product exemption in section 119.071(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and (2) the personnel and internal affairs files of the police and “criminalists” who testified against him at trial....

...Pro., 754 So.2d 640, 643 (Fla. 1999))). This Court has repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to the requirements of rule 3.852. See, e.g., Howell v. State, 133 So.3d 511, 515-16 (Fla. 2014); Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86, 110-11 (Fla. 2011). Section 119.071(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2014), provides the following exemption from public records disclosure: A public record that was prepared by an agency attorney (including an attorney employed or retained by the agency or employed or retain...

...Braddy claims that the postconviction court erred as a matter of law in denying him access to certain materials in sealed box 6202—fourteen manila envelopes pertaining to attorney work product and notes—that were purportedly claimed to be exempt by the State Attorney under the work product exemption in section 119.071(l)(d)l., Florida Statutes. Braddy correctly argues that the work product exemption in section 119.071(l)(d)l....

...This appeal concerns whether Appellee City of High Springs (hereinafter the City) violated the Public Records Act by redacting questions and answers from a pre-employment polygraph report before releasing it to Appellant (hereinafter Rush). The trial court found that the City had properly redacted the material pursuant to section 119.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010)....

...ults" section of the report and later requesting the "comments and findings" section. In response to these requests, the City redacted the questions and answers from the report, claiming *1110 they were exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to section 119.071(1)(a)....

...Rush disagreed with the City's decision to redact the report. After unsuccessfully trying to obtain the full report, she filed a four-count complaint demanding, among other things, that the City release the report in its complete, unredacted form. In the complaint, she claimed section 119.071(1)(a) was not meant to apply to pre-employment polygraphs. Both parties moved for summary judgment on each count of the complaint. Ultimately, the trial court agreed with the City that section 119.071(1)(a) covers those questions asked and the answers given during a pre-employment polygraph....

...ort. [1] Rush now appeals the order entering final judgment to the City on those counts. The question presented in the instant appeal is essentially one of statutory interpretation, namely whether the exemption to the Public Records Act contained in section 119.071(1)(a) applies to questions and answers contained in a pre-employment polygraph report....

...o. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). "Thus, if the meaning of the statute is clear then this Court's task goes no further than applying the plain language of the statute." GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So.2d 781, 785 (Fla.2007). Section 119.071(1)(a) states: Examination questions and answer sheets of examinations administered by a governmental agency for the purpose of licensure, certification, or employment are exempt from section 119.07(1) and section 24(a), Article I of the State Constitution....

...he applicant's ability to be honest and accurate, which they claimed were essential traits of law enforcement officers. The redacted questions and answers contained in the pre-employment polygraph report, therefore, fit each of the criteria given in section 119.071(1)(a)....

...Depending on the nature of the testing and the resources available to it, a government agency may very well require a third party to assist in the examination process, but the government agency is still "managing or supervising the execution, use or conduct of" the examination. Despite its plain language, Rush argues that section 119.071(1)(a) applies only to pre-employment examinations that test an applicant's technical knowledge or skills, and not to examinations—such as the polygraph in this case—that explore an applicant's mental state or individual character traits....

...t past questions and answers. She claims the release of questions and answers from examinations that test for mental capacity or character traits, instead of technical knowledge or skills, would in no way serve this purpose. However, the language of section 119.071(1)(a) does not limit its application to any certain type of examination or subject matter that might be explored in a pre-employment examination. And while the exemption certainly prevents other prospective applicants from gaining an edge in the employment application process through advance notice of test questions and possible answers, there is nothing in section 119.071(1)(a) that states that this is its exclusive purpose. Furthermore, this Court has extended coverage under section 119.071(1)(a) to examinations that test for more than purely the applicant's skills or knowledge....

...The county provided the ratings sheets, but redacted the portion that contained a list of ten questions asked of each applicant and a summary of their responses. Id. at 836-837. In affirming the county's decision to redact these portions of the records, this Court applied the precursor to section 119.071(1)(a), finding the redacted questions and answer summaries were part of an examination that "tested the applicants' response both as to style and content....

...In short, the polygraph examination here was unique to this applicant and has not become part of the public domain. The City's decision to redact the portions of the polygraph report containing examination questions and answers was reasonably based on section 119.071(1)(a)....

...The trial court found the City's response was tardy, as over a week elapsed between the time that it received the report and the time that it released the "results" page. This portion of the trial court's decision is not contested on appeal. [2] This is not to say that section 119.071(1)(a) may be extended to the questions and answers in any polygraph report....

...1st DCA 1988), this Court found that a polygraph of a criminal defendant could be released and examined by a co-defendant seeking to prepare a post-conviction motion. However, Wisner and Downs involved polygraphs prepared during criminal investigations and can thus be distinguished from the polygraphs described in section 119.071(1)(a), which are prepared "for the purpose of licensure, certification, or employment." [3] We recognize that Rush has also raised arguments concerning the timeliness and nature of the City's response to her public records requests, i...

plan" exemption from disclosure contained at section 119.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). As we wrote in State

...Gillespie, 227 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) (holding district court may grant state certiorari review of non-appealable discovery orders). In his petition, the Sheriff argues that the Plan contains sensitive law enforcement information and is exempt from disclosure. See § 119.071(2)(c), (d), Fla....

...search functions and who will apply for search warrants; and • information that may jeopardize the safety of law enforcement personnel who effectuate arrests in similar ongoing and future operations. Brendmoen argues that any exemption provided in section 119.071(2)(e) is irrelevant, as he is entitled to the requested information under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(f)....

...Michael Barfield appeals the trial court’s order denying declaratory relief and access to public records. He raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in concluding that several requested items contained in a School Board litigation report were exempt under section 119.071(l)(d), Florida Statutes (2012)....

...ending does not preempt the statutory presumption that an administrative investigation is presumed inactive after sixty days. As to the first issue, we reverse because the School Board failed to prove its burden of entitlement to the exemption under 119.071(l)(d)....

...nt. On March 28, 2013, the School Board provided Barfield with the requested record, which contained numerous redactions. The first page of the redacted report stated: “WARNING: This memo contains material exempt from public disclosure Pursuant to Section 119.071(l)(d) Florida Statutes (2011)....

...Lauder-dale Police Dep’t, 639 So.2d 1012 , 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). An individual’s reason for requesting a public record is irrelevant. See Warden v. Bennett, 340 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The School Board relied upon the exemption set forth in section 119.071(l)(d)(l), which provides in part: A public record that was prepared by an agency attorney ......

...Investigation, 802 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that section 27.04, Florida Statutes, allows “the state attorney to issue subpoenas duces tecum for records as part of an ongoing investigation”) (additional citations omitted); see also § 119.071(2)(c)1, Fla....

which the murder is observed by the witness.” § 119.071(2)(m)l., Florida Statutes (2017). We hold that

...with Smith's request to view the personnel file of a Moore Haven employee who Smith contends was terminated in 2000 "for violating agency policy." The circuit court denied Smith's petition, finding that the information sought was either exempt under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2007), as identifying information of active or former corrections officers, or was subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3)....

...paired practitioners program. Section 458.3315, [3] Florida Statutes, established the program to permit practitioners to obtain treatment in lieu of disciplinary sanctions, and made all information about such treatment "confidential and exempt" from section 119.071(1)....

required to make a written request pursuant to section 119.071(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes, to maintain the

...ct, subject to a public records disclosure.” [] That is, without conducting an in camera inspection of the requested [compact discs], the circuit court could not conclude that their contents are exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(3)(a)(2) or section 281.301; nor could it determine whether redaction was possible. Id....

...Scott will attend as part of his campaign for U.S. Senate during the period July 20, 2018 through October 31, 2018.” In its response to the public records request, Appellant asserted that it would not produce the records because they are exempt under section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2018). Pursuant to Appellee’s ensuing petition for writ of mandamus and the trial court’s order to show cause, Appellant filed a response asserting as it does on appeal that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2)(d)—which exempts “[a]ny information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel”—because the premature disclosure of prospective information regarding the Governor’s detailed schedule and travel plans wou...

...n for U.S. Senate during the period July 20, 2018 through October 31, 2018. In response to AHF’s requests, the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) asserted that the records requested in (1)-(4) were exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2018), because they contained “information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel.” As to request (5), the EOG asserted that the Governor’s campaign schedule and campaign fundraisin...

...City of Hallandale Beach, 68 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). After AHF petitioned for mandamus relief, the trial court issued an order to show cause to the EOG. In response, the EOG argued that the records requested were exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 119.071(2)(d)....

...2d 319, 326 5 (Fla. 1999). The Legislature established such restrictions for agency investigations, specifically making exempt from disclosure “any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel.” § 119.071(2)(d), Fla....

...surveillance techniques, procedures, and personnel identifications. Rather, it exempts from disclosure “[a]ny information revealing the surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel” of the FDLE, the Capitol Police, and the Governor’s security detail. See §§ 119.071(2)(d), 119.011(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added). Thus, the plain language of section 119.071(2)(d) reflects the Legislature’s intent to exempt from disclosure any information by which a person could ascertain law enforcement surveillance techniques, procedures, and the identity of law enforcement personnel....

...under the Public Records Act, it also compromises the statutory mandate of the security detail to provide for and maintain the security of the Governor. For these reasons, I join the majority in holding that the trial court erred in concluding that the records were not exempt under section 119.071(2)(d) and compelling the EOG to produce public records responsive to AHF’s request....

...reveal any information about surveillance techniques, procedures, or law enforcement personnel. The trial court should also consider testimony and evidence submitted by the parties before determining whether the public records, or portions thereof, may be exempt under section 119.071(2)(d). _____________________________ Barry Richard and M....

...were the subject of a public records request. Although after a de novo review I agree that all of the content within the bodies of these emails is exempt from disclosure as material prepared by an agency attorney in anticipation of imminent civil litigation, see § 119.071(1)(d)(1), Fla....

...Thereafter, AgroSource filed a broad public records request and the Department provided many documents. The Department declined to provide the emails on the ground that these documents were prepared by an agency attorney in anticipation of imminent civil litigation. See § 119.071(1)(d)....

...Thereafter, the trial judge issued a several-page order in which he indicated that he had conducted an in camera review of the twenty-two email records. In the order, the trial court found that one of the emails was not responsive to AgroSource's public records request and that the remaining emails were exempt under section 119.071(1)(d)....

...e majority will not "second guess" the trial court's review of the records. I have applied a full de novo standard of review. While I have given deference to the opinion of the Department's attorney that his emails are exempt under section 119.071(1)(d), and I do not review that testimony for any issue of credibility, I -6- believe it is incumbent on this court to review all of these records to make our own separate determinatio...

...litigation" has a factual component, determining whether the content of each document entirely reflects "a mental impression, conclusion, litigation strategy, or legal theory of the attorney or the agency" is a mixed issue with a major legal component. § 119.071(1)(d)(1)....

...2018) (“A proposed amendment ‘must stand on its own merits and not be disguised as something else.’ ” (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 1982))). Similarly, when our statutes reflect a legislative bargain to conceal the identities of persons, they do so expressly. We see this in section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2018), 7 the very legislation that discusses, among other things, confidentiality, public records, and crime victims. See, e.g., § 119.071(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (“Any information revealing the identity of a confidential informant or a confidential source is exempt” from public records requirements.) (emphasis added); § 119.071(2)(h), Fla....

...offenses including child abuse, sexual battery, and other sexual 7. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Florida Statutes will be to those that were on the books in 2018, the year Marsy’s Law was ratified. - 12 - offenses); § 119.071(2)(j)1., Fla....

.... is confidential and exempt” from public records requirements.); § 458.3193(3), Fla. Stat. (“The agreement must restrict the release of information that would identify individuals . . . .”). - 13 -  Section 119.071, Florida Statutes, provides another clue that “locate” and “identify” have different meanings relevant to our case. The two words—or derivations or synonyms of them—frequently appear in conjunction with each other; they would not if just one would suffice to communicate both ideas. See § 119.071(2)(h)2.b., Fla. Stat. (allowing for the disclosure of certain information if its “release would assist in locating or identifying a person that such agency believes to be missing or endangered”) (emphasis added); § 119.071(4)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (preventing from public disclosure—in twenty-two instances—the names and locations of agency personnel and their family members); § 119.071(5)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (“Information that would identify or locate a child who participates in a government-sponsored recreation program is exempt from” certain public disclosure requirements.); § 119.071(5)(c)3., Fla....

...It is unclear from the record whether the Coalition filed a similar request regarding the first shooting. - 24 - Art. I, § 24(c), Fla. Const. And sure enough, some Florida statutes do just this 16 for certain public records. According to section 119.071(2)(j)1., Florida Statutes, “[a]ny document that reveals the identity ....

...Legislature—in performing the constitutional function reserved to it and not to us—from expanding them. Our decision instead is limited to the determination that Marsy’s Law does not guarantee to crime victims a generalized right of anonymity. 16. Notably, section 119.071(4)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes, makes exempt from public records requirements “[t]he home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and photographs of active or former sworn law enforcement personnel ....

...For example, pursuant to section 382.008(6), Florida Statutes, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, the Department may not disclose the cause of death on a death certificate. Additionally, the Department must redact the social security number of the deceased pursuant to section 119.071(5)(a)6., Florida Statutes, and the home addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth of certain governmental employees, including law enforcement officers and firefighters pursuant to section 119.071(4)(d), Florida Statutes....

...Due process mandates it. We also deny the petition as to the other portion of the order and require that there be an unredacted disclosure to the public and third parties. As to the public disclosure, first, the state did not preserve any argument regarding section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2018) ; second, this case does not involve a public records request under section 119.071 ; third, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the state did not meet its burden to justify closure; and finally, there is a common law "right to access" judicial records where the state has failed to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in non-disclosure....

...This court stayed the release of the unredacted documents pending our certiorari review. The state argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the release of privileged surveillance techniques that are not subject to public disclosure under section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes....

...nt case. I. PRESERVATION, JURISDICTION, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Initially, the state did not preserve the arguments raised in its petition. During the proceedings below, the state did not specifically assert a "surveillance technique privilege" under section 119.071(2)(d) or cite to any chapter 119 exemption....

...pelling governmental interest," referring to rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(iii). 2 The state did not argue any other grounds for closure under rule 2.420. Further, at no point did the state put the trial court on *1066 notice that it was in any way relying on section 119.071....

...he state argues that the redacted information contains "surveillance techniques not widely known to the public." However, rule 2.420 does not recognize a surveillance technique exception. Nor is the "not widely known to the public" language found in section 119.071(2)(d), upon which the state now relies....

...orded by the judge in his order granting or refusing closure." Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis , 426 So.2d 1 , 7-8 (Fla. 1982). In this case, the state did not offer any evidence that the redacted information contained "surveillance techniques" under section 119.071(2)(d) nor did the state demonstrate that the alleged surveillance techniques were "not widely known." Therefore, there is no record upon which the state can rely....

...5th DCA 2010) (applying chapter 119 in the context of a public records request to the sheriff, an agency under chapter 119). The state conflates records that are exempt under chapter 119 with records that are confidential under rule 2.420. The state relies on section 119.071(2)(d), which states: "Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution." Contrary to the state's suggestion, the judiciary has not adopted section 119.071(2)(d) via rule 2.420(c). Chapter 119 speaks to both "exempt" records and records which are "confidential *1070 and exempt." Section 119.071(2)(d) only makes surveillance techniques exempt , not confidential and exempt. In contrast, rule 2.420(c)(9)(A) adopts certain laws pertaining to confidential records. Therefore, it does not adopt section 119.071(2)(d)....

...of Seminole , 874 So.2d 48 , 53-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Further, rule 2.420 contains specific references to chapter 119 when exemptions under that chapter apply. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B), 2.420(d)(1)(B)(iii), (xiii). Had rule 2.420(c) intended to incorporate section 119.071(2)(d), it would have included a specific reference to that section....

...Due process mandates it. We also deny the petition as to the other portion of the order and require that there be an unredacted disclosure to the public and third parties. As to the public disclosure, first, the state did not preserve any argument regarding section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2018); second, this case does not involve a public records request under section 119.071; third, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the state did not meet its burden to justify closure; and finally, there is a common law “right to access” judicial records where the state has failed to demons...

...redacted documents pending our certiorari review. The state argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the release of privileged surveillance techniques that are not subject to public disclosure under section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes....

...I. PRESERVATION, JURISDICTION, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Initially, the state did not preserve the arguments raised in its petition. During the proceedings below, the state did not specifically assert a “surveillance technique privilege” under section 119.071(2)(d) or cite to any chapter 119 exemption....

...3 governmental interest,” referring to rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(iii). 2 The state did not argue any other grounds for closure under rule 2.420. Further, at no point did the state put the trial court on notice that it was in any way relying on section 119.071....

...that the redacted information contains “surveillance techniques not widely known to the public.” However, rule 2.420 does not recognize a surveillance technique exception. Nor is the “not widely known to the public” language found in section 119.071(2)(d), upon which the state now relies....

...recorded by the judge in his order granting or refusing closure.” Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 7-8 (Fla. 1982). In this case, the state did not offer any evidence that the redacted information contained “surveillance techniques” under section 119.071(2)(d) nor did the state demonstrate that the alleged surveillance techniques were “not widely known.” Therefore, there is no record upon which the state can rely....

...5th DCA 2010) (applying chapter 119 in the context of a public records request to the sheriff, an agency under chapter 119). 9  The state conflates records that are exempt under chapter 119 with records that are confidential under rule 2.420. The state relies on section 119.071(2)(d), which states: “Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.” Contrary to the state’s suggestion, the judiciary has not adopted section 119.071(2)(d) via rule 2.420(c). Chapter 119 speaks to both “exempt” records and records which are “confidential and exempt.” Section 119.071(2)(d) only makes surveillance techniques exempt, not confidential and exempt. In contrast, rule 2.420(c)(9)(A) adopts certain laws pertaining to confidential records. Therefore, it does not adopt section 119.071(2)(d). There is a difference, in the context of chapter 119, between exempt information and confidential information: If information is made confidential in the statutes, the information is not subject to inspection b...

...5th DCA 2004). Further, rule 2.420 contains specific references to chapter 119 when exemptions under that chapter apply. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B), 2.420(d)(1)(B)(iii), (xiii). Had rule 2.420(c) intended to incorporate section 119.071(2)(d), it would have included a specific reference to that section....

...compelling governmental interest” is demonstrated or to “comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida . . . statutes.” I agree with Judge Levine that there is a difference between exempt records and confidential records. Section 119.071, Florida Statutes, is designed to give an agency the discretion to assert a public record exemption. However, in certain instances, the legislature has taken that 15 discretion away, and declared, statutorily, that certain records are confidential. See § 119.071(h), Fla. Stat. (2018) (identifying records which are “confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution”) (emphasis added). I agree with Judge Levine that under section 119.071(d), surveillance techniques are exempt, and not statutorily confidential. § 119.071(d), Fla. Stat....

...discovery rules, trumps confidentiality regarding disclosure of the redacted information to the defendant. I contend the public does not hold a similar trump card. In my view, a strong statement of public policy in statutes can establish a compelling governmental interest. Section 119.071(2)(d) makes a clear legislative statement of public policy that “[a]ny information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.” § 119.071(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added). Additionally, section 119.0714(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2018) provides: (1) Court files.―Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to exempt from s....

...119.07(1) a public record that was made a part of a court file and that is not specifically closed by order of court, except: .... (c) Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel as provided in s. 119.071(2)(d). § 119.0714(1)(c), Fla....

...otect a compelling governmental interest. As discussed in Section I of the majority opinion, the State failed to preserve in the trial court the arguments raised in the certiorari petition regarding the surveillance technique exemption authorized in section 119.071(2)(d)....

...ot widely known by the public. In the trial court, the State had multiple opportunities for making winning arguments to block the disclosure of the redacted information to the public. Our review of the record in light of all the exemptions listed in section 119.071 reveals there are other exemptions the State could have asserted besides the surveillance technique exception....

...nd hold as confidential, the following address: Address_____ City State ________________ Zip_ Telephone (area code and number)_ This request is being made for the purpose of keeping the location of my residence unknown for safety reasons pursuant to section 119.071(2)0)1, section 784.0485(3)(b)l, Florida Statutes, or other statutory provision providing for the separate confidential filing for safety reasons....

exempt from public disclosure pursuant to section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes? You state that patrol

exempt from public records disclosure under section 119.071(4)(d), Florida Statutes? According to your

information was exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2)(c)1. That statute provides exemptions from

Dear Mr. Wahlen: On behalf of the School Board of Leon County, you ask the following question: Must the school board disclose information exempt from public inspection and copying under section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, to the certified bargaining representative of persons in a defined "bargaining unit" under section 447.203 (8), Florida Statutes? You indicate that the school board has configured its electronic information...

...individuals in one of the school board's bargaining units and has asked for the home addresses, telephone numbers and places of employment of employees who are in the bargaining unit and are the spouses of active or former law enforcement personnel. Section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, provides: "The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel ....

...the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such personnel; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such personnel are exempt from s. 119.07 (1). . . ." This office has recognized that section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, constitutes an exemption to the mandatory disclosure requirements of section 119.07 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, for certain information relating to current or former law enforcement personnel, their spouses and families....

...distinction between the two terms was clearly recognized: "[T]hus exempt information could be revealed at the discretion of the agency." 3 In Attorney General's Opinion 90-50, this office addressed the issue of when information exempted pursuant to section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes may be released by an agency....

...on is consistent with the purpose of the exemption. 4 The FEA has presented several opinions from the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) as well as the National Labor Relations Board in support of its position that the exemption in section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, does not affect its entitlement to the requested information....

...Public Employees Relations Commission , as well as the recognition of the protected nature of the home address of law enforcement personnel in Rule 60CC-2.002 (1), Florida Administrative Code, supports the conclusion that the school board is not required to disclose information exempt from public inspection and copying under section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, to the certified bargaining representative. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the home addresses and other protected personal information of the spouses of law enforcement personnel who are employed by the school board are exempt from disclosure under section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and the school board is not required to report such information to the bargaining representative....

...(PERC declined to require City to provide all requested information, but directed it to offer material which did not reveal test questions or jeopardize the confidentiality of test-takers). 7 Section 119.07 (3)(k), Fla. Stat. (1979), has been amended and renumbered as s. 119.071 (4)(d), Fla....

...partment to retain an officer who engaged in serious misconduct based on the same delay. Second, subsection 112.533(2)(b), by its terms, "does not apply to any public record which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to chapter 119." Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(c) exempts "active criminal investigative information" from disclosure under the public records act....

...: Address City State Zip Telephone (area code and number) This request is being made for the purpose of keeping the location of my residence unknown for safety reasons pursuant to section 119.071(2)(j)1, section 784.0485(3)(b)1, Florida Statutes, or other statutory provision providing for the separate confidential filing for safety reasons. Dated: __________________________________...

substantially the following question: Does section 119.071(2)(g)1.a., Florida Statutes, require disclosure

...19-13269, we AFFIRM the Court’s below for the necessity of videotaping the deposition of Major Longo—that they were worried he would not show up for trial. Because of Defendants’ failure to give Major Longo’s address, the release of which would violate a Florida statute, Fla. Stat. § 119.071(4)(d)(2)(a), Johnston stated that she could not tell whether Major Longo was within the subpoena power of the District Court....

...That’s not politically correct but I happen to believe in God.... Christ is the intercessor. Further, the notice alleged that when the impropriety of obtaining the NCIC report was raised, Judge Singbush gave the document to counsel for that witness, in violation of section 119.071(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), and 28 C.F.R....

...City State Zip Telephone (area code and number) This request is being made for the purpose of keeping the location of my residence unknown for safety reasons pursuant to section 119.071(2)(j)1, section 741.30(3)(b)(a), section 784.046(4)(b)1, and section 784.0485(3)(b)1, Florida Statutes, or other statutory provision providing for the separate confidential filing for safety reasons. Dated:...

...City State Zip Telephone (area code and number) This request is being made for the purpose of keeping the location of my residence unknown for safety reasons pursuant to section 119.071(2)(j)1, section 741.30(3)(b)(a), section 784.046(4)(b)1, and section 784.0485(3)(b)1, Florida Statutes, or other statutory provision providing for the separate confidential filing for safety reasons. Dated:...

...ntion purposes are exempt from disclosure due to this statute. Similarly, a security needs assessment on file with an agency was determined to be exempt. 3 The exemption contained in section 281.301 , Florida Statutes, was clarified and recreated in section 119.071 , Florida Statutes, during the 2001 legislative session. 4 Section 119.071 , Florida Statutes, as subsequently amended, 5 states: "A security system plan or portion thereof for: (1) Any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions; or (2) Any privately owned or leased property which plan or portion thereof is held by any agency, as defined in s....

...mptions from disclosure are narrowly construed so they are limited to their stated purpose. 8 Any doubt as to the applicability of an exemption should be resolved in favor of disclosure. 9 In this instance, the plain language of sections 281.301 and 119.071 , Florida Statutes, makes confidential all records revealing a security system....

...spatches of law enforcement for verified or false alarms. The disclosure of the names and addresses contained in the specified records would necessarily reveal the existence of security systems. It is my opinion, therefore, that sections 281.301 and 119.071 , Florida Statutes, preclude public disclosure of the name and address of applicants for security system permits, of persons cited for violations of alarm ordinances, or of individuals who are the subject of reports of dispatches of law enforcement for verified or false alarms....

...wly so they are limited to their stated purpose.” Seminole Cty. v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (citations omitted). Adopting the Board’s proposed “wait and see” approach in this case is not justified by the language of section 119.071(2)(g)1....

...thus did not state a cause of action. In its order, the court specified that, other than Appellant’s attempt to seek attorney’s fees, there was no practical need to determine whether the documents initially withheld by Green were exempt under section 119.071(2)(g)1. “An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.” Godwin v....

...Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644-45 (Fla. 1999)). The Board argues that Green was justified 6 in initially withholding the documents claiming they were exempt from immediate production under section 119.071(2)(g)1....

...I of the State Constitution until a finding is made relating to probable cause, the investigation of the complaint becomes inactive, or the complaint or other record is made part of the official record of any hearing or court proceeding. § 119.071(2)(g)1., Fla....

...le work environment,” Green might have discovered or generated records during her investigation which related to discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or marital status, and would, thus, be exempt under section 119.071(2)(g)1....

...e investigation might lead to the discovery or creation of exempt documents. Before we dispose of the Board’s tipsy coachman argument, we note that both parties agreed and requested this court to rule as a matter of law as to whether the section 119.071(2)(g)1. exemption applies to the case at hand. We reject the Board’s argument that section 119.071(2)(g)1....

...wly so they are limited to their stated purpose.” Seminole Cty. v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (citations omitted). Adopting the Board’s proposed “wait and see” approach in this case is not justified by the language of section 119.071(2)(g)1....

could have easily so provided as it has in section 119.071(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. That section provides

...A Times-Union reporter requested copies of the tape and transcript and counsel for the newspaper appeared at a subsequent hearing and argued for their release. The court denied the records request, finding that certain statements of the defendant were admissions or confessions which are exempted from disclosure pursuant to section 119.071(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...disclosure under the Public Records Act. The BSO responded to the petition, raising the same exemption, and other objections not relevant to this appeal. The School Board’s response claimed that the footage was exempt from disclosure under Florida Statute section 119.071(3)(a), Florida Statutes – the “security system plan exemption.” Before the hearing, the Media filed two DVDs in support of the petition. The first was a video of a press conference conducted by the BSO....

...After reviewing the video recordings, this Court finds that the potential harm to the current security system is outweighed by the strong public interest in disclosure. -6- Upon finding good cause, the court held that section 119.071(3), Florida Statutes, did not bar disclosure of the video recordings. The BSO was ordered to produce the redacted versions of the video recordings to the Media....

...d criminal intelligence information, is the area of which the courts ought to be chary, given the overarching policy of the Public Records Act.”). We reject the State Attorney’s argument that the video footage is exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2), Florida Statutes (2018), because the footage was created before the criminal investigation began and was compiled by the School Board, not a law enforcement agency. By statute, “active criminal investigative information” is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. § 119.071(2)(c)1., Fla....

...2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644-45 (Fla. 1999)). The School Board asserts that the surveillance footage is statutorily exempt from disclosure under the “security plan” exemption contained in section 119.071(3), Florida Statutes (2018)....

...We hold that the “good cause” exception to this exemption applies, so that disclosure is mandated. -9-  Information relating to the School’s security system is public record. However, by statute, it is exempt from disclosure. § 119.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018); see also § 281.301(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Section 119.071 is entitled “General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.” The “security plan” exemption is found in subpart (3) which reads: (3) Security and firesafety.— (a) 1....

...A security or firesafety system plan or portion thereof for: a. Any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions; or b. Any privately owned or leased property held by an agency is confidential and exempt . . . § 119.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis supplied). The language highlighted above defines an exempt “security system plan” to include “audio and visual presentations . . . relating directly to the physical security . . . of the facility.” § 119.071(3)(a)1.a., Fla....

...(2018). Because the footage from the surveillance cameras “relates directly” to the security system at Douglas, including both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities, the footage is confidential and exempt from disclosure to the public under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1), unless an exception to the exemption applies. - 10 -  Public information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure because it is directly related to a security system “may be disclosed” upon “a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction.” § 119.071(3)(a)3.d.; § 281.301(2)(d)....

...The “good cause” statutory exception to the security system exemption reads: 3. Information made confidential and exempt by this paragraph may be disclosed: * * * d. Upon a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction. § 119.071(3)(a)3, Fla....

...CONNER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the majority opinion’s analysis and conclusion that the surveillance video footage sought to be obtained by the appellees does not qualify for a public records request exemption under the section 119.071(2), Florida Statutes (2018) (the criminal investigation and criminal information exemption), but does qualify for an exemption under section 119.071(3), Florida Statutes (2018) (the “security plan” exemption). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding and conclusion that the “good faith” exception to the “security plan” exemption applies, so as to authorize release of the surveillance videos....

...sure under the Public Records Act. The BSO responded to the petition, raising the same exemption, and other objections not relevant to this appeal. The School Board's response claimed that the footage was exempt from disclosure under Florida Statute section 119.071(3)(a), Florida Statutes - the "security system plan exemption." Before the hearing, the Media filed two DVDs in support of the petition....

...arm to the current security system. After reviewing the video recordings, this Court finds that the potential harm to the current security system is outweighed by the strong public interest in disclosure. Upon finding good cause, the court held that section 119.071(3), Florida Statutes, did not bar disclosure of the video recordings....

...ative and criminal intelligence information, is the area of which the courts ought to be chary, given the overarching policy of the Public Records Act."). We reject the State Attorney's argument that the video footage is exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2), Florida Statutes (2018), because the footage was created before the criminal investigation began and was compiled by the School Board, not a law enforcement agency. By statute, "active criminal investigative information" is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. § 119.071(2)(c) 1., Fla....

...State , 829 So.2d 901 , 906 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA , 731 So.2d 638 , 644-45 (Fla. 1999) ). *213 The School Board asserts that the surveillance footage is statutorily exempt from disclosure under the "security plan" exemption contained in section 119.071(3), Florida Statutes (2018). We hold that the "good cause" exception to this exemption applies, so that disclosure is mandated. Information relating to the School's security system is public record. However, by statute, it is exempt from disclosure. § 119.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; see also § 281.301(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Section 119.071 is entitled "General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records." The "security plan" exemption is found in subpart (3) which reads: (3) Security and firesafety.- (a) 1....

...ning. 2. A security or firesafety system plan or portion thereof for: a. Any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions; or b. Any privately owned or leased property held by an agency is confidential and exempt ... § 119.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis supplied). The language highlighted above defines an exempt "security system plan" to include "audio and visual presentations ... relating directly to the physical security ... of the facility." § 119.071(3)(a) 1.a., Fla....

...(2018). Because the footage from the surveillance cameras "relates directly" to the security system at Douglas, including both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities, the footage is confidential and exempt from disclosure to the public under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1), unless an exception to the exemption applies. Public information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure because it is directly related to a security system "may be disclosed" upon "a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction." § 119.071(3)(a) 3.d.; § 281.301(2)(d). The "good cause" statutory exception to the security system exemption reads: 3. Information made confidential and exempt by this paragraph may be disclosed: * * * d. Upon a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction. § 119.071(3)(a)3, Fla....

...Conner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion. I concur with the majority opinion's analysis and conclusion that the surveillance video footage sought to be obtained by the appellees does not qualify for a public records request exemption under the section 119.071(2), Florida Statutes (2018) (the criminal investigation and criminal information exemption), but does qualify for an exemption under section 119.071(3), Florida Statutes (2018) (the "security plan" exemption)....

...9.030(a)(2)(A)(v). The suggested question submitted by the School Board reads: When it is determined that a public records request "relates directly" to a security system, and is otherwise confidential and exempt from disclosure to the public under §§ 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1), whether the "good cause" exception to that exemption requires a showing of more than the public's need for the information....

...mportant only to the parties involved." I contend the majority's opinion sets a precedent that a trial judge, as the finder of fact, can find a good faith reason to grant an exception to the exclusion from disclosure of public records under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1), Florida Statutes (2018), based on a finding that the safety risks presented by the disclosure *219 are "minimal." My dissent to the underlying opinion was not based on an improper appellate reweighing of evidence....

...I would certify to our supreme court the following question of great public importance: WHEN IT IS DETERMINED THAT A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST "RELATES DIRECTLY" TO A SECURITY SYSTEM OF A PUBLIC BUILDING AND IS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER SECTIONS 119.071(3)(A) AND 281.301(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, DOES THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS RESPONDING TO A VIOLENT ATTACK OCCURING IN A PUBLIC BUILDING CONSTITUTE A GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION TO THE EXEMPTION, WHERE THE DISCLOSURE CO...

...Act to allow a criminal defendant who had already been convicted and sentenced to obtain an unredacted copy of the minor 1. The Fifth District certified the following question: DOES FLORIDA’S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 119.071(2)(j)2.b., FLORIDA STATUTES (2013), REQUIRE A STATE AGENCY TO PROVIDE A CONVICTED, INCARCERATED INMATE WITH AN UNREDACTED COPY OF THE VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF THE MINOR VICTIM OF HIS OR HER CRIME? Ingram, 2014 W...

...disclosed to the convicted criminal defendant as a public record but yet still keeping the record exempt from public disclosure. This Court should expressly disapprove that incorrect interpretation in order to clarify this important issue. Section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2013), the part of the state’s Public Records Act that addresses “exemptions from inspection or copying of public records,” plainly provides that a videotaped statement of a minor victim of sexual abuse is confidential and exempt from public records disclosure. Specifically, section 119.071(2)(j)2.a....

...attorney, or a person specified in an order entered by the court having jurisdiction of the alleged offense. A person who violates this provision commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. § 119.071(2)(j)2.b., Fla. Stat. Additional provisions of section 119.071 pertaining to “criminal investigative information” make the prohibition on disclosure of this information as a public record crystal clear. Section 119.071(2)(h)1.c....

...explains that a “photograph, videotape, or image of any part of the body of the victim of a sexual offense prohibited under [various statutes], regardless of whether the photograph, videotape, or image identifies the victim,” is confidential and exempt from public disclosure. Similarly, section 119.071(2)(h)1.a....

...exempts from public disclosure -4- “[a]ny information, including the photograph, name, address, or other fact, which reveals the identity of the victim of the crime of child abuse as defined by chapter 827.” And, section 119.071(2)(h)1.b....

...sexual offense, as well as any photograph or videotape of any part of the body of a victim of a sexual offense even if the photograph or videotape does not identify the victim, are clearly exempt from public records disclosure. Pursuant to section 119.071(2)(j)2.a., then, the videotaped statement of the minor victim of sexual battery in this case—Ingram’s daughter—would be confidential and exempt from public disclosure, as confirmed by these provisions of Florida’s Public Records Act. This is so because the videotaped statement is the statement of the minor victim of sexual battery, which is an offense enumerated within the text of section 119.071(2)(j)2.a....

...Because the unredacted videotaped statement -5- would show the minor victim’s face, it would reveal the minor victim’s identity, as prohibited by the statute. Accordingly, this videotaped statement falls under the exemption from disclosure stated in section 119.071(2)(j)2.a....

...Ingram is not entitled to this videotaped statement as a member of the public. The Public Records Act also does not allow Ingram to access the videotaped statement simply by virtue of his status as the defendant. Contrary to the Fifth District’s analysis, section 119.071(2)(j)2.b....

...Instead, this subsection establishes the criminal penalty for wrongfully disclosing information exempt from public disclosure to persons not entitled to it. The Fifth District’s statutory construction analysis completely changed the meaning of section 119.071(2)(j)2.b....

...to provide greater access and less protection to a minor victim’s videotaped statement, based on the language of the specific exemptions, than to an adult victim’s, for which it is beyond dispute that disclosure is prohibited. See -6- §§ 119.071(2)(h)1.a.-c., Fla....

...This construction of the statutory provisions not only defies common sense and public policy, but is a patent misinterpretation of the purpose of these subsections—to afford greater protection against disclosure of information pertaining to a minor victim. In contrast to the Fifth District’s construction, section 119.071(2)(j)2.b. acknowledges that the criminal defendant and the defendant’s attorney may be entitled to such information for reasons other than through a public records request, and therefore explains that the criminal penalty for disclosure would not apply in such circumstances. For example, the State has a constitutional duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to turn over exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant. Without the provision in section 119.071(2)(j)2.b. regarding disclosure made to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, a public employee or official could be subject to criminal penalty under section 119.071(2)(j)2.b....

...Crim. P. 3.852(k)(1) (limiting the scope of capital postconviction public records production to records that are not privileged or statutorily immune from production). Accordingly, based on the plain language of the applicable provisions of section 119.071, I would quash the Fifth District’s decision and hold that an unredacted videotaped statement of a minor victim of a sexual offense is not a public record under chapter 119....

...We reverse only that part of the circuit court ruling excluding from evidence the portion of Mr. Ivancevich’s report containing his mental impressions. The City argues, and the State and Mr. Rowan agree, that Mr. Ivancevich’s report is a public record. Section 119.071(l)(d)(l), Florida Statutes (2011), provides as follows: A public record that was prepared by an agency attorney ......

...to be ‘active’ and thus subject to disclosure.”). Mr. Ivancevich’s investigation and any related criminal proceedings have concluded, since no charges were filed against any of the parties mentioned in the report. Therefore, the exemption in section 119.071(l)(d)(l) no longer applies and the report was properly made a public record pursuant to section 119.07....

...After multiple hearings, the trial court ruled for WKMG, holding that the video footage did not fall within an exemption to the Public Records Act, as follows: 18.The video and audio recordings do not fall within the scope of a “security system plan” as defined by section 119.071(3)(a) or within the scope of section 281.301....

...cerns are de minimis and not sufficient to overcome a strong public policy in favor of access to public records. 20. Based upon the plain language of these exemptions, the Court finds that the exemptions relied upon by LYNX, as contained in sections 119.071 (3)(a) and 281.301, do not exempt or make confidential the video and audio recordings at issue here....

...“The agency bears the burden of proving its right to the claimed exemption.” Id. (citing Woolling v. Lamar, 764 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). The two exemptions relied on in this case are read together. Marino v. Univ. of Fla., 107 So.3d 1231,1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that sections 281.301 and 119.071(3)(a) do not permit the University of Florida to redact the location of university facilities housing primates); Critical Intervention Servs., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 908 So.2d 1195, 1196-97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (agreeing “with the Attorney General that the plain language of sections 281.301 and 119.071 makes confidential all records revealing a security system” and holding that both sections “prohibit public disclosure of the names and addresses of applicants for security system permits, of persons cited for violations of alarm ordinances, and of individuals who are the subject of law enforcement dispatch reports for verified or false alarms because disclosure would imperil the safety of persons and property”). Section 119.071 (3)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that records, information, photographs, and audio and visual presentations that reveal a security system plan are confidential and exempt, as follows: (a) 1....

...The trial court did not rule on the fourth count, which was not advanced at the hearing. . WKMG also argues in its brief that the Legislature did not include "videotape” in either of the exceptions and, therefore, the language is clear that the videotapes do not fall within either section 281.301 or section 119.071(3)(a)....

...f the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission that are furnished to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in the course of a criminal investigation by the department exempt as criminal intelligence or criminal investigative information pursuant to section 119.071 (2)(c)1., Florida Statutes? The Utilities Commission for the City of New Smyrna Beach (UC) was created by the city charter as a separately governed entity of the city....

...Thus, this office stated that the exemption for active criminal investigative information may not be subverted by making a public records request for all public records gathered by a law enforcement agency in the course of its investigation; to permit such requests would negate the purpose of the exemption. 5 Moreover, section 119.071 (2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: "A request of a law enforcement agency to inspect or copy a public record that is in the custody of another agency, the custodian's response to the request, and any information t...

...re available to the public. . . ." The statement of necessity by the Legislature, in adopting the above exemption, provides: "The Legislature finds that the exemption from public-records requirements which is provided in section 119.07 (3)(b)2. [now section 119.071 (2)(c)2.], Florida Statutes, is a public necessity because criminal investigations are jeopardized if law enforcement requests to inspect or copy a public record, the record custodian's response to such a request, or other information that would identify the records requested are available to the public....

...xempt during the period in which the information constitutes criminal-intelligence information or criminal-investigative information that is active." 6 Thus, while the records of the UC are not exempt merely because they have been submitted to FDLE, section 119.071 (2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, exempts FDLE's request to inspect or copy records, as well as the UC's response, or any information that would identify the public record that was requested by FDLE or provided by the UC during the period i...

...See USCA11 Case: 21-12540 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 6 of 46 6 Opinion of the Court 21-12540 § 943.0435(2)(b), (3). This information is generally available to the public. See Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Sex offenders in Florida have an obligation to keep their reg- istration up to date....

...See § 943.0435(2)(b), (3). This information—including the offender’s picture, date of birth, addresses, vehicles, and sexual offense convictions—is available to the public unless exempt or confidential. See Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Sex offenders have an obligation to keep their registration up to date....

1998). 11 Section 119.011(2), Fla. Stat. 12 Section 119.071, Fla. Stat.; Wait v. Florida Power Light Co

...inspection report. The University ultimately produced the requested records with partial redactions to obscure the physical housing location of the primates. The University maintained that this information was confidential and exempt under sections 119.071(3) and 281.301, Florida Statutes. The appellant argued below that the University improperly redacted the physical location of the primates under the exemption language in sections 119.071(3) and 281.301 as that language pertained to security system plans....

...revealing such systems or information, and all meetings relating directly to or that would reveal such systems or information are confidential and exempt from ss. 119.07(1) and 286.011 and other laws and rules requiring public access or disclosure. Section 119.071(3) also exempts “security system plans,” which is defined to include all: a....

...ty of the facility or revealing security systems[.] Generally, the location of public facilities is subject to public disclosure under the Act. The statutes are replete with public records exemptions that protect addresses from disclosure. See e.g., § 119.071 (4)(d), Fla....

...storage facilities, or laboratories established, maintained, or regulated by the Department of Health as part of the state’s plan to defend against an act of terrorism.” Clearly the legislature did not view the exemptions of sections 281.301 and 119.071(3) as broad enough to protect those facilities directly engaged in anti-terrorism efforts from disclosure....

...In 2016, Gonzalez requested copies of twenty-one CDs the State had listed as evidence in its case against Gonzalez. The State Attorney's Office responded and explained that fifteen CDs would be made available but that the remaining six CDs were exempt from public disclosure pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a)(2) and 281.301, Florida Statutes (2015)....

...determine if the document is, in fact, subject to a public records disclosure." Walton, 634 So. 2d at 1062. That is, without conducting an in camera inspection of the requested CDs, the circuit court could not conclude that their contents are exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(3)(a)(2) or section 281.301; nor could it determine whether redaction was possible....

...Although not essential to our holding, in order to give some guidance to the trial court when it conducts a hearing, we will address the substance of the claimed exemptions within the context of the limited-record, which does not include the disputed records. The State asserts that the records are exempt in part pursuant to section 119.071(2)(h)l....

...compiled” by law enforcement in the course of conducting a criminal investigation, “including, but not limited to information derived from laboratory tests, reports ... or ... surveillance.” It does not include, however, “[d]ocuments ... required by law ... to be given to the person arrested, except as provided in section 119.071(2)(h) ....” § 119.011(3)(c)5., Fla. Stat. Section 119.071(2)(h)l., in relevant part, exempts from public record disclosure “information” that reveals the identity of the victim of enumerated sexual offenses, and any “photograph, videotape, or image of any part of the body [whether or n...

...It does not differentiate between a child victim and an adult victim. Reading these sections of the statute together leaves little doubt that some of the materials sought by Petitioner must be redacted. 3 The more difficult question involves the application of section 119.071(2)0)2., which creates a specific exemption from disclosure for “information” that reveals the identity of a minor victim contained in the “videotaped statement of a minor” victim of enumerated sexual offenses. Section 119.071(2)(j)2.a. is specific as to identity information contained within videotaped statements of minor victims. Section 119.071(2)(h), on the other hand, is a more general exemption addressing various types of “criminal investigative information,” including those records that contain identity information or images of victims of sexual offenses....

...Although the two statutes overlap to some extent, for purposes of our analysis, the specific statute controls over the more general statute. See Parker v. Baker, 499 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (when different statutes embrace one subject, specific controls over general). Section 119.071(2)0)2.b....

...dant.” The State makes two coun- *681 terarguments. First, it argues that Petitioner is no longer the “defendant” because the prosecution had concluded and he is now a “convicted felon” and “incarcerated inmate.” Second, it argues that section 119.071(2)(j)2.a. serves a different function than section 119.071(2)(j)2.b., the latter being merely to establish a criminal penalty for the disclosure of protected material....

...statute in favor of narrowest construction of Public Records Act exemption). We likewise reject the State’s second counterargument. It argues that the sole purpose for section 119,071(2)(j)2.b. is to establish criminal penalties for a violation of section 119.071(2)(j)2.a....

...Accordingly, the State argues that the exclusion for the defendant and others is only meant to be an exclusion from criminal penalties, not the disclosure itself. Although this construction is plausible, we do not view it as the most obvious construction and, clearly, it is not the only construction. Section 119.071(2)(j)2.b....

...Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const. The purpose of the exemption at issue here is to protect the identity of the victim, not the substance of the tape itself. It protects “information in a videotaped statement ... which reveals that minor’s identity.” § 119.071(2)(j)2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Likewise, section 119.071(2)(j)2.b....

...As to Petitioner’s second category of public records requested, if there is a *684 videotaped interview of the minor victim, an unredacted copy must be provided to defendant or his attorney. All of the other records should be redacted in accordance with section 119.071(2)(h)....

...final, then Petitioner may file a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court. We grant the State’s request to certify a question of great public importance but rephrase the question, as follows: DOES FLORIDA’S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 119.071(2)(j)2.b., FLORIDA STATUTES (2013), REQUIRE A STATE AGENCY TO PROVIDE A CONVICTED, INCARCERATED INMATE WITH AN UNREDACTED COPY OF THE VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF THE MINOR VICTIM OF HIS OR HER CRIME? ORDER QUASHED; QUESTION CERTIFIED....

...Reischmann: As City Attorney for the City of Palm Coast, you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following questions: 1. Whether the provisions relating to the exempt and confidential nature of social security numbers held by a public agency in subparagraphs 119.071(5)(a)6. and (5)(a)7., Florida Statutes, are in conflict? 2. Whether the City of Palm Coast may deny a request for social security numbers from a commercial entity pursuant to section 119.071 (5)(a)7., Florida Statutes, when the commercial entity states that the commercial activity includes providing single query data searches of its database to its customers who are banks, finance companies, licensed repossession companies and licensed private investigative agencies? In sum: 1. There is no conflict between subparagraphs 119.071(5)(a)6., and (5)(a)7., Florida Statutes, and these provisions should be read together and harmonized....

...The question of whether providing "single query data searches of its database to its customers who are banks, finance companies, licensed repossession companies and licensed private investigative agencies" comes within the scope of a "commercial activity" for purposes of section 119.071 (5)(a)7., Florida Statutes, cannot be resolved by this office. Question One Section 119.071 , Florida Statutes, provides general exemptions from the inspection and copying requirements of Florida's Public Records Law....

...Subsection (5)(a) of the statute, which deals with the collection and maintenance of social security numbers by governmental agencies, expresses the Legislature's on-going intention to "monitor the use of social security numbers held by agencies in order to maintain a balanced public policy." 1 Section 119.071 (5)(a)5., Florida Statutes, states that social security numbers held by an agency are confidential and exempt from public disclosure requirements....

...of the Uniform Commercial Code by the office of the Secretary of State." Staff analysis of the bill indicates that this language was intended to amend the general public records exemption for social security numbers held by an agency as provided in section 119.071 (5)(a)5., Florida Statutes....

...or any person who "willfully and knowingly violates" the paragraph commits a third degree felony. Public officers violating this paragraph commit a noncriminal infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.00 per violation. 9 Both subparagraphs 119.071(5)(a)6....

...and qualifies the discretion of an agency to release social security numbers to commercial entities by prohibiting an agency from refusing to disclose this information if the commercial entity requestor qualifies under the statute and provides a written request for the information. 12 In sum, it is my opinion that section 119.071 (5)(a)6., Florida Statutes, and section 119.071 (5)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not conflict and may be read together to authorize the disclosure of social security numbers to commercial entities engaged in the commercial activities identified in the statute....

...rposes for which the social security numbers will be used. Question Two Your second question requires resolution of a mixed question of law and fact which is beyond the authority of this office. 13 As discussed in my response to your first question, section 119.071 (5), Florida Statutes, provides that a governmental agency may not deny a commercial entity access to agency-held social security numbers if the commercial entity is engaged in the performance of a commercial activity as defined in th...

...ommercial activity. The statute also provides that "verification of the accuracy of personal information received by a commercial entity in the normal course of its business" does come within the definition of a "commercial activity" for purposes of section 119.071 (5)(a)7., Florida Statutes....

...ssary to determine "the specific purposes for which the [social security] numbers will be used" 14 if sufficient information upon which to base its release of this information has not been provided. Sincerely, Bill McCollum Attorney General BM/tgh 1 Section 119.071 (5)(a)c., Fla....

...2009-150 , Laws of Fla.; s. 1, ch. 2009-169 , Laws of Fla.; ss. 1, 2, Ch. 2009-235 , Laws of Fla., for other amendments made to this section during the 2009 legislative session. 3 See Florida House of Representatives Staff Analysis of CS/HB 7051 dated 4/14/2009. 4 Section 119.071 (5)(a)7.b., Fla. Stat. 5 Section 119.071 (5)(a)7.a.(I), Fla. Stat. 6 Section 119.071 (5)(a)7.a.(II), Fla. Stat. 7 Section 119.071 (5)(a)7.b., Fla. Stat. 8 Section 119.071 (5)(a)7.c., Fla. Stat. 9 Section 119.071 (5)(a)8.b., Fla....

...And see this office's statement concerning Attorney General Opinions, available online at: www.myflorida.com , which provides that Attorney General Opinions are intended to address questions of law, not questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact. 14 Section 119.071 (5)(a)7.c., Fla....

...petition for writ of mandamus, directing the City to provide to Miami New Times copies of draft audit reports pertaining to two Miami Beach towing companies. We quash the order on appeal because, under the plain and unambiguous statutory language of section 119.0713(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2019), the draft audit reports were not public records subject to disclosure. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In December 2018, the Internal Auditor for the City of Miami Beach commenced an internal audit of two Miami Beach towing companies....

...The draft audit reports were never finalized, nor were they signed by the City Manager or presented to the City Commission. Following termination of the City’s internal audit, Miami New Times again requested a copy of the draft audit reports. The City again denied the request, based on section 119.0713(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2019), providing that an audit report and audit workpapers become a public record subject to disclosure only when the audit is “complete and the audit report becomes final.” The City maintained that the...

...agency. The reporter published an article discussing the draft audit reports. Miami New Times renewed its request to the City, asserting that, because there was “no reasonable anticipation of resolution of the city’s audit,” the exemption under section 119.0713(2)(b) did not apply, and the draft audit reports were subject to disclosure....

...The City again denied the request, advising that because the internal audit had not been completed and the draft audit reports were not final, they were not subject to disclosure as public records. Miami New Times petitioned for writ of mandamus, contending that the City improperly relied on section 119.0713(2)(b) in denying the request for a copy of the draft audit reports because the City investigation had been terminated and therefore the reports were no longer exempt from disclosure as public records....

...Miami New Times alternatively contended that if a statutory exemption applied, that exemption was waived when the towing companies disclosed the draft audit reports to a third party. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that, even if the draft audit reports were exempt from disclosure under section 119.0713(2)(b), any entitlement to that exemption ceased to exist once those draft reports, provided by the City to the auditee towing companies, were disclosed by the towing companies (and without 4 the City’s knowledge) to a third party....

...(providing: “It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. Providing access to public records is a duty of each agency”) and provides various public record exemptions, including those found in section 119.0713....

...“the Public Records Act is construed liberally in favor of openness, and exemptions from disclosure are construed narrowly and limited to their designated purpose.” Rameses, 29 So. 3d 421. The government also bears the burden to show that a statutory exemption applies. Id. Section 119.0713 provides that certain records of local government agencies are treated as confidential or otherwise exempt from treatment as public records under Chapter 119 and Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution. For our purposes, the pertinent portion of section 119.0713, governing audits and audit reports, provides: 6  The audit report of an internal auditor and the investigative report of the inspector general prepared for or on behalf of a...

...I of the State Constitution until the audit or investigation is complete and the audit report becomes final or when the investigation is no longer active. An investigation is active if it is continuing with a reasonable, good faith anticipation of resolution and with reasonable dispatch. § 119.0713(2)(b) (emphasis added). The highlighted portion of the statute is plain and unambiguous: An audit report “becomes a public record” only “when the audit....

...I of the State Constitution until the audit or investigation is complete and the audit report becomes final or when the investigation is no longer active. An investigation is active if it is continuing with a reasonable, good faith anticipation of resolution and with reasonable dispatch. § 119.0713(2)(b) (emphasis added). To the extent that the draft audit reports could be considered “audit workpapers and notes,” the plain and unambiguous statutory language provides those records remain “confidential and exempt from” disclosure “until the audit....

...ot become a public record subject to disclosure because the audit was not complete and the audit report was not final. We reject Miami New Times’ invitation to construe an “audit” and an “investigation” in identical fashion under section 119.0713(2)(b)....

...1993)). It is undisputed that the City’s audit was not complete, and the audit report had not been presented to the City Commission, when Miami New Times made its public records requests. As a result, the draft audit reports were not subject to disclosure under section 119.0713(2)(b)....

...oming subject to disclosure as public records—a completed audit and a final audit report—had not occurred. We also reject Miami New Times’ alternative contention that, even if the draft audit reports were exempt from disclosure under section 119.0713(2)(b), any entitlement to that exemption vanished once those draft reports, provided by the City to the auditee towing companies, were disclosed (without the City’s knowledge or consent) by the towing companies to a third party. To support its contention, Miami New Times relies on Satz v....

...were part of the evidence gathered in the course of a criminal investigation) were “documents” within the meaning of section 119.011(3)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1979). This section excludes “[d]ocuments . . . given to the person arrested” from the public records exemption in section 119.071(2)(c)1 (exempting from disclosure “active criminal intelligence and investigative information”). In other words, although section 119.071(2)(c)1 provides a general exemption from public records disclosure of “active criminal intelligence information” and “active criminal investigative information,” section 119.011(3)(c)5 specifically excludes from that defined...

...by the towing companies to a third party, without the knowledge or consent of the City, did not alter their status so as to render them subject to disclosure as public records. CONCLUSION Under the plain and unambiguous statutory language of section 119.0713(2)(b), the draft audit reports were not subject to disclosure as public records....

...State ___________________ Zip ___________________ Telephone (area code and number) ___________________________________________ This request is being made for the purpose of keeping the location of my residence unknown for safety reasons pursuant to section 119.071(2)(j)1, Florida Statutes....

...is not sufficient to take the case to trial.” (Emphasis in original). Three days later, the Department responded to the show cause order, conceding that section 286.011(8) was not applicable and asserting for the first time that the applicable exemption was provided by section 119.071(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, which temporarily exempted attorney work product until the conclusion of the adversarial administrative proceeding....

...Although the Department initially asserted that the document was an attorney-client communication exempt from disclosure under section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes (2015), it subsequently conceded that section 286.011(8) was not applicable. Instead, it asserted that the Henderson memorandum was properly withheld under section 119.071(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2015), which provides in pertinent part: A public record that was prepared by an agency attorney (including an attorney employed or retained by the agency or employed or retained by another publ...

...attorney’s fees and costs. Schweickert v. Citrus Cty. Fla. Bd., 193 So. 3d 1075, 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Mazer v. Orange Cty., 811 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Appellant claims that the Department could not withhold the Henderson memorandum under section 119.071(1)(d)1....

...not negate the adversarial nature of the administrative proceedings because the probable cause panel was authorized under section 455.225(2) to continue the prosecution regardless of Henderson’s recommendation. B. The section 119.071(1)(d)1....

...1st DCA 2014) (“[T]he decision-making strategy and opinions behind petitioner’s proposal for settlement includes ‘opinion’ work product, which is never discoverable.”). C. Even if the exemption of section 119.071(1)(d)1....

...lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved). III. Because the Department did not improperly withhold the Henderson memorandum under section 119.071(1)(d)1., Appellant was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. See § 119.071(1)(d)2., Fla....

...DOC denied both requests, stating that the requested video recordings were confidential and exempt from Florida’s public records laws. Specifically, DOC claimed that the footage fell under the “security plan” exemption to Florida’s public disclosure laws. §§ 119.071(3)(a) & 281.301(1), Fla....

...the security plan exemption and were exempt from public disclosure. In April 2016, the Miami Herald filed a motion for reconsideration asking that the trial court reassess its order due to the legislature’s then-recent amendments to sections 119.071(3)(a)3.d....

...2 The applicable statutes provide exceptions to exemption, and in 2016, the Legislature added a provision to the exceptions permitting disclosure “[u]pon a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction.” Ch. 2016-178, §§ 1 and 2, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 119.071(3)(a)3.d.; § 281.301(2)(d), Fla. Stat.). 2 Section 119.071(3)(a), Florida Statutes exempts from public disclosure “[r]ecords, information, photographs, audio and visual presentations ....

...of Trustees, Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Lee, 189 So. 3d 120, 128 (Fla. 2016). The School Board’s objection to the video footage was not “unlawful” because it was based on the “security plan” exemption from disclosure contained at section 119.071(3)(a), Fla....

... Because the footage from the surveillance cameras “relates directly” to the security system at Douglas, including both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities, the footage is confidential and exempt from disclosure to the public under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1), unless an exception to the exemption applies. The School Board’s refusal to permit disclosure was required by statute; it could not therefore be “unlawful” within the meaning of section 119.12(1)(a). Only a “court of competent jurisdiction” may determine whether the “good cause” statutory exception applied to require disclosure. § 119.071(3)(a)3, Fla....

Alert System exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(5)(j), Florida Statutes (Chapter 2011-85)?

...The trial court concluded that an email and attachment forwarded to TPD that alleged an incident of domestic violence were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA), because they related to an active and ongoing criminal investigation. See § 119.071(2)(c)l, Fla....

...The trial court granted the motion and held a hearing on November 3, 2014, after which it denied the petition. It found that the information sought by Mr. Barfield was “the subject of an active and ongoing criminal investigation and therefore exempt from production pursuant to section 119.071(2)(c)l of the Florida Statutes.” Mr....

...Florida Dept. of Educ., 133 So.3d 957, 959-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). There is no dispute that this case involves a public record. 1 And while “active criminal investigative information” 2 is considered exempt from public records disclosure requirements, see § 119.071(2)(c)l, Fla....

...Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandamus seeking the production of public records pursuant to chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2013). We agree. The trial court could not conclude the records were exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2013), without conducting an in-camera inspection of the records and determining whether they could be redacted to remove information identifying confidential informants....

...Lewis adopted a “three-pronged test” in assessing such cases, and it carefully differentiated between pretrial proceedings in criminal cases and the actual trials of such cases. Importantly, the present case involves demands for information revealing the substance of a confession (exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2016), as specifically found by the trial court) and for other pretrial discovery materials....

...y the record. First, the trial judge reviewed many of the videos, images, and documents in contention, not once, but twice. Because she directed the release of several videotapes with specific redactions of portions held exempt under section 119.071(2)(e), she ordered the State to provide the redacted materials to the Court for a further in camera review to be certain that her instructions had been followed; only then did she approve the release of the items.7 Second,...

...a separate order regarding closure for the Arthur hearing—are hardly “without citation to any supporting authority.” The First Interim Order, for example, 6 Petition at 1. 7 First Interim Order at 4. 9 addresses section 119.071(2)(e), the Lewis case, and Times Publishing Co....

...ordered to remain under seal (in five of those categories, sealed only “until time of trial”).10 The trial court’s attention to each individual discovery item, and the redaction of only limited sections of the videotapes, reflects careful adherence to the demands of Lewis, section 119.071(2)(e), and the other authorities considered in the First Interim Order. Following our review of the petitioners’ requests, the records themselves, and the trial court’s analysis, we find no departure from the essential requirements of law....

Dear Chief Williams: As Chief of Police for the City of Venice Police Department, you ask substantially the following questions: 1) Who is included within the exemption afforded by section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes? 2) What limitations are placed upon the chief of police regarding the release of photographs of the police department's law enforcement officers and employees? Question One Section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: "The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, ....

...law enforcement personnel ?and in the absence of any statutory or other commonly accepted definition of the term "law enforcement personnel," this office recommended that agencies faced with implementing the provisions of section 119.07 (3)(k) [now section 119.071 (4)(d)1.], Florida Statutes, consider utilizing the definition contained in section 784.07 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, until this matter is clarified by the Legislature....

...definition in section 784.07 (1)(a), Florida Statutes. Thus, while the sworn officers of the police department would be included within the exemption, support personnel employed by the police department would not appear to be included. Question Two Section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, constitutes an exemption to the mandatory disclosure requirements of section 119.07 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, for certain information relating to current or former law enforcement personnel....

...uld not be revealed under any circumstances." The distinction between the two terms was clearly recognized: "[T]hus exempt information could be revealed at the discretion of the agency." 6 In considering the issue of when the information exempted by section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, may be released, this office in Attorney General Opinion 90-50 stated that although the Legislature apparently chose to place the release of this information within the discretion of the agency, in light of the underlying purpose of the enactment, i.e....

...Sarasota County Sheriff's Office , 9 the court held that the booking photograph of the Charlotte County deputy sheriff could not be released by the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office when the deputy sheriff had filed a written request for confidentiality pursuant to section 119.071 (4)(d)8., Florida Statutes....

...members is required to withhold from public release the officer's address, phone number, social security number, and photograph if the officer makes a written request for such information to be maintained as exempt." In cases where the provisions of section 119.071 (4)(d)8., Florida Statutes, are applicable and the officer has filed a written request to maintain the information as exempt, it may be advisable in light of the above cases to obtain the officer's permission before the release of the photograph. 11 While section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, makes certain information relating to law enforcement personnel exempt, this office has recognized that the statute does not prohibit a municipality from having access to the names and addresses of the city's law enforcement officers....

...Similarly, the statute would not appear to prevent the police department's public information officer from maintaining photographs of the law enforcement officers; however, such records held by city employees in carrying out their official functions would be still subject to the provisions of section 119.071 (4)(d)1....

...closure. 13 This office has consistently concluded that personnel records of employees paid from public funds or otherwise subject to legislative control are subject to public inspection in the absence of a statutory exemption. 14 Accordingly, while section 119.071 (4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, makes the photographs of law enforcement personnel exempt rather than exempt and confidential, in determining whether such information should be disclosed, you as custodian of the records, or your designee,...

...ment personnel could be disclosed to the State Attorney's Office for the purpose of serving criminal witness subpoenas by mail pursuant to s. 48.031 , Fla. Stat. 8 In Attorney General Opinion 94-90, this office advised that the exemption afforded by s. 119.071 (4)(d)1....

...Stat., did not exempt from disclosure booking photographs of law enforcement personnel who had been arrested and who were not undercover personnel whose identity would otherwise be protected under s. 119.07 (4)(c), Fla. Stat., since the exemption afforded by s. 119.071 (4)(d)1....

...12th Jud. Cir., Sarasota County, March 13, 1996). 10 Case No. 2000?718-CA (Fla. 4th Jud. Cir., Duval County, December 21, 2001). 11 See generally Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 04-20 (2004) stating that a property appraiser is precluded by s. 119.07 (3)(i) [now s. 119.071 (4)(d)8.], Fla....

...Florida Statutes, defines "Custodian of public records" to mean "the elected or appointed state, county, or municipal officer charged with the responsibility of maintaining the office having public records, or his or her designee." (e.s.) 13 And see s. 119.071 (4)(a)1., Fla....

...maintained by a direct-support organization (DSO), citing section 1004.28(5), Florida Statutes (2006); (2) compiled during university research, citing section 1004.22(2), Florida Statutes (2006); or (3) prepared in anticipation of litigation, citing section 119.071(l)(d)(l), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...recordings of the police station for a specific two hour period on the day of Blanco’s arrest. The City denied the public records request stating that the video camera recordings obtained from the security systems are confidential and exempt from disclosure under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301, Florida Statutes (2021)—"security system plan” exemption. 2  On October 20, 2021, after the City denied the public records request, Blanco filed a motion to compel and/or...

...the subpoena for the video camera recordings. The City moved to set aside or quash the trial court’s order granting Blanco’s Motion to Compel (“Motion to Quash”). The City argued the video camera recordings are confidential and exempt from disclosure under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301 because they reveal information pertaining to the security capabilities and vulnerabilities of the City’s police department’s security systems....

...4 to a public records disclosure.’ . . . That is, without conducting an in camera inspection of the requested CDs, the circuit court could not conclude that their contents are exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(3)(a)(2) or section 281.301; nor could it determine whether redaction was possible.”). The City offered to provide the video camera recordings to the trial court for an in camera review. The City’s Motion to Quash was heard by Judge Raul A....

...clear departure from the essential requirements of law because ‘in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.’ ”) (quoting Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992)). Sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1) sets forth a “security system plan” exemption to Florida’s public records disclosure laws....

...4th DCA 2018) (“Because the footage from the surveillance camera ‘relates directly’ to the security system at [the public high school], including both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities, the footage is confidential and exempt from disclosure to the public under sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301(1), unless an exception to the exemption applies.”). However, the confidential and exempt information under these sections may be disclosed “[u]pon a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction.” § 119.071(3)(a)3.d.; § 281.301(2)(d); see Miami Herald Media, 278 So. 3d at 790 (“Florida law allows for the public disclosure of materials that otherwise would be exempted for security purposes if good cause is shown.”). Sections 119.071(3) and 281.301 do not specifically require the trial court to conduct an in camera review prior to ordering disclosure.3 Thus, based on the statute itself, the trial court did not depart 3 In contrast, an in camera review is addressed i...

...exemptions,” and does provide for an in camera review by the trial court under certain circumstances: (g) In any civil action in which an exemption to this section is asserted, if the exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(1)(d) or (f), (2)(d), (e), or (f), or (4)(c), the public record or part thereof in question shall be submitted to the court for an inspection in camera....

...Under the circumstances of this case, the trial judge should have granted an evidentiary hearing to consider whether the exemptions applied or whether the documents requested were public records subject to disclosure. by virtue of s. 119.071(2)(c), an inspection in camera is discretionary with the court....

...der the public record or part thereof in question to be immediately produced for inspection or copying as requested by the person seeking such access. This provision applies to civil actions, not criminal actions, and it does not refer to section 119.071(3)(a). 8 Walton, 634 So....

...ash the trial court’s order directing the production of the operation plan, arguing that the operation plan contains sensitive law enforcement information that 10 is exempt from disclosure, in part, under section 119.071(2), Florida Statutes (2013)....

...State had listed in its case against Gonzalez. Id. at 100. The State responded that fifteen of 11 the CDs would be made available, but six of the CDS were exempt from public disclosure pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a)(2) and 281.301 (Fla. Stat....

...The Second District reversed the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus and remanded to the circuit court to conduct an in camera inspection of the six CDs to determine if they are subject to the exemptions from public disclosure under sections 119.071(3)(a)(2) and 281.301, and if so, whether redaction would allow their production....

...ct to a public records disclosure.” Walton, 634 So. 2d at 1062. That is, without conducting an in camera inspection of the requested CDs, the circuit court could not conclude that their contents are exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(3)(a)(2) or section 281.301; nor could it determine whether redaction was possible. 4 These statutes also set forth a public records exemption for a “security system plan.” 12 Gonzalez, 240 So....