Marsy’s Law ruling may free info
But one Florida police department is skirting change to privacy law
TALLAHASSEE – After the Florida Supreme Court held that Marsy’s Law can’t be used to hide the identities of law enforcement who used deadly force, the Tallahassee Police Department is refusing to release the name and personnel file for one of two officers at the heart of the landmark case.
The state’s high court ruled Nov. 30 that Marsy’s Law, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2018 that grants certain rights to crime victims, doesn’t guarantee anonymity for any victim, police officers included.
The decision was expected to open the door to releases of information that police departments across Florida secreted away in the wake of Marsy’s Law’s passage, including the names of not only crime victims but police officers who considered themselves victims of the very suspects they killed.
However, the Tallahassee Police Department has essentially thwarted the ruling, denying multiple requests from the Tallahassee Democrat for basic information about one of the two officers. The department declined to release even a single page of his personnel file, citing a “secondary” public records exemption rather than Marsy’s Law as it had previously.
David Cuillier, director of the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida, said the public’s interest in this case far outweighs the privacy interest of a police officer.
“Police officers have the power to detain, tase and ultimately kill, and with that authority comes great responsibility,” Cuillier said. “Making officer names
public can bring new facts to light ... that may shed light on the incident. That can save taxpayers millions in settlements and ultimately save lives. Transparency allows the public to hold our institutions accountable. It builds public trust in law enforcement that they deserve.”
Police Chief Lawrence Revell declined to comment for this article. The city, which led the fight to reveal the officers’ names, is also now silent. City Manager Reese Goad and City Attorney Amy Toman did not respond to emails from the Democrat. Former City Attorney Cassandra Jackson, who led the fight for the city, referred questions to the city attorney and clerk.
The Supreme Court ruling sprang from two unrelated incidents in which Tallahassee police officers shot and killed armed suspects who were threatening them in 2020, the same year George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police fueled protests across the country.
Unlike in that sensational case, police in the local shootings were found by grand juries to have used lawful and justifiable force against the suspects, Wilbon Woodard, who rushed at an officer with a hunting knife, and Tony McDade, who aimed a gun at an officer after stabbing a neighbor’s son to death.
The officers, known in court documents as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, sought anonymity under Marsy’s Law and sued after the city announced plans to release their names. The court fight lasted more than two years, with the city and media groups, including the Tallahassee Democrat and parent company Gannett, on one side and the officers and police union on the other.
After the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the Democrat asked Tallahassee Police for unredacted incident reports that would name the officers. In response, the department released records that identified John Doe 1, who killed Woodard, but not John Doe 2, who killed McDade, a Black transgender man whose name became a rallying cry at local protests and was even invoked by President Barack Obama.
Tallahassee Police and the State Attorney’s Office, which also declined to release John Doe 2’s name, cited a subsection of statutes, Chapter 119.071(4), that includes a number of exemptions, from Social Security and phone numbers to home addresses and information that would reveal undercover officers or activities.
However, the Leon County Clerk of Court, relying on both the Marsy’s Law decision and guidance from the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers association, took an entirely different tack. In response to a request from the Democrat, the clerk’s office released unredacted grand jury reports identifying both officers.
“It was a Supreme Court mandate,” said Clerk of Court Gwen MarshallKnight. “The court had issued an opinion at the time of your request, so I had to follow the law.”
The grand jury reports identified John Doe 1 as Officer Tyler Poole and John Doe 2 as Officer Glen Charles Farmer, both of whom joined the Tallahassee Police in 2016.
The Florida Supreme Court, in its 6-0 opinion, held that Marsy’s Law guarantees “no victim — police officer or otherwise — the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.” The justices emphasized that such a guarantee would not “readily fit” with constitutional rights for citizens to confront witnesses or copy and inspect public records.
The court specifically found that a provision in Marsy’s Law barring the release of records that could be used to “locate or harass” victims or their families doesn’t encompass a victim’s identity.
“For it is one thing to identify a person and another altogether to locate or harass him or her,” the court said, adding that “one’s name, standing alone ... communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered.”
The city’s legal team, which included then-City Attorney Jackson, argued during the litigation that “a few officers” led by the police union were transforming Marsy’s Law “into a cloak of anonymity for police conduct to the detriment of the public these officers serve.”
But after the Supreme Court ruling, the City Attorney’s Office and city administration, in an abrupt about-face, also denied requests for Farmer’s records. The city administration, which has its own records department, cited the same public records exemptions as TPD.
Barbara Petersen, executive director of the Florida Center for Government Accountability, said that under Florida’s public records law, if an agency record contains both exempt and non-exempt information, it must redact the exempt information and release the rest.
“There would be a lot of information in a personnel file that is not exempt from disclosure,” including applications, evaluations and training, Petersen said. “TPD is withholding information that they don’t have the authority to withhold.”
The Tallahasee Police Department, which stopped releasing the names of homicide victims after Marsy’s Law passed, resumed its practice of releasing them after the Supreme Court ruling. The Leon County Sheriff ’s Office released the names of two people killed in a Jan. 25 murder-suicide but not of a man who was shot and killed Jan. 17 in another “domestic” incident.
Angela Green-Sherrod, a Leon County sheriff ’s spokeswoman, said that the agency will continue to “hold back” names and other identifying details about crime victims unless the family grants permission to release the information. She said the agency has always “made it a point” not to apply Marsy’s Law to officers in the line of duty.
“We believe in keeping things transparent,” she said in an email.
Meanwhile, the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers issued guidance in December advising clerks’ offices not to redact victims’ names unless otherwise covered by rules or a court order.
“If the ruling of the court remains unchanged, clerks cannot use Marsy’s Law to redact and hold confidential victims’ names,” the association said. “The court left open the possibility of a legislative change, but any such action by the Legislature would likely need to be adopted by the court to be effective for court records.”
Legislation (HB 1605 and 1607) was introduced the first day of session to exempt the identities of crime victims, including police, from public records. But the bills, which were sponsored by Rep. Chuck Brannan, R-Macclenny, a retired Baker County Sheriff’s Office investigator, never got a committee hearing.
Marsy’s Law for Florida, which successfully pushed for the constitutional amendment, issued a statement saying it supports any bill that restores privacy rights of crime victims — with one key caveat.
“We cannot fully support a bill outright unless it includes a provision to ensure that when reviewing the conduct of an on-duty law enforcement officer who has used physical force, the right to privacy of their name must quickly yield to the public’s right to know,” said Jennifer Fennell, the group’s spokesperson.
Stephen Webster, a Tallahassee attorney who represented both Farmer and Poole, questioned whether the media, the City Attorney’s Office or Marsy’s Law for Florida would consider officers who were killed or injured in the line of duty victims. He said their argument that officers were not “persons” and therefore not victims under Marsy’s Law was “unreasonable and absurd.” He also said that as a result of the litigation, Marsy’s Law was “gutted” and privacy rights stripped from crime victims.
“I just don’t agree that law enforcement officers simply because they put on a badge surrender all of their rights and agree to become punching bags and shooting targets without any accompanying rights to privacy,” Webster said.
Cuillier, executive director of UF’s Freedom of Information Center, said contentious disputes over public records aren’t uncommon after police-involved shootings and that there are often delays in the release of names, usually out of deference to the officers and their families.
“But ultimately, that information comes out, particularly when it goes to court,” he said. “So there’s no use trying to hide it. It should just be forthcoming and open. Let’s make this a transparent system so that the public can trust law enforcement. That’s important (now) more than ever.”