Officers who shoot people could have names withheld under Florida bill
TALLAHASSEE — Florida law enforcement officers who use deadly or harmful force could have their names shielded from the public under a proposed state law.
The proposal would prohibit law enforcement agencies from releasing any public record that identifies the officer for 72 hours after they shoot someone or use other force that causes 'great bodily harm.'
But even after that 72-hour period expires, an agency head can decide to indefinitely withhold the officer's information if they deem it necessary.
The proposal comes in a larger bill meant to shield the identities of crime victims.
A 2018 constitutional amendment known as Marsy's Law protects some personal information of crime victims. But the Florida Supreme Court in 2023 ruled that did not include the blanket right to redact their names.
The ruling came after Tallahassee police officers fatally shot people in two separate incidents. Their agency withheld the officers' names because the officers said they were victims because they were assaulted by the people they shot.
Sen. Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, said he's sponsoring the legislation because of that Supreme Court ruling, saying victims' names should be protected. But he said he's still working on the language about withholding police officers' identities.
The bill has moved through one committee in both the House and the Senate, where it received only one no vote, from Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando.
Smith said he thought the 72-hour cooling-off period was reasonable to delay releasing an officer's name. But he expressed concern about giving an agency 'subjective' discretion to exempt officers' names indefinitely.
The bill would allow for an officer to choose to waive the public records exemption at any time.
Meanwhile, another bill moving in the House would prohibit officials from including an investigative file in an officer's personnel file if that investigation didn't result in any disciplinary action. It has not been heard in the Senate.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Fabricio, R-Miami Lakes, would also require all complaints against a law enforcement officer be signed under oath. And it would require that an officer be told the names of all people making complaints against them.
The bill was unanimously supported by Republicans and Democrats during its first House committee. But the Florida Sheriffs Association opposes it.
The association did not return a request for comment, but Fabricio said the sheriffs association didn't want the sworn complaint requirement to be codified across the board.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Senator Calls LA Unrest 'Anarchy and Chaos' As Trump Deploys Guard: Live Updates
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has sharply condemned the escalating unrest in Los Angeles, warning that Democrats risk losing the moral high ground if they fail to denounce the violence. His remarks, posted on X, have drawn reactions across the political spectrum, including responses from Elon Musk and other officials. What to Know: Fetterman called the Los Angeles protests "anarchy and true chaos" and urged his party to speak out. "I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that," he wrote. Elon Musk responded to Fetterman's remarks with an American flag emoji. Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy praised Fetterman, saying it takes courage to speak hard truths. Deputy White House chief of staff Taylor Budowich claimed Fetterman's stance stresses divisions within the Democratic Party. Sen. Bernie Sanders also spoke against violent protests, calling for disciplined, nonviolent resistance. The unrest has led to the deployment of National Guard troops, with President Trump defending the decision. Stay with Newsweek for the latest.
Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
WATCH: Dem, media outlets insist LA anti-ICE riots are 'peaceful' despite violence, injured cops
Media outlets and elected Democrats have made the rounds in recent days, often using the word "peaceful" to describe the anti-ICE unrest in Los Angeles over the weekend despite rioting and violence that has resulted in destruction and injured police officers, a video review by Fox News Digital finds. "The vast majority of protesters and demonstrators are peaceful," Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said recently on MSNBC. "They're passionate." "A lot of these peaceful protests are being generated because the president of the United States is sowing chaos," Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC. On CNN, a California Democrat House member said she doesn't know what the "so-called" violence is "all about." "Well, first of all, it's not even all of downtown," Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said while downplaying the extent of the violence. "This is isolated to a few streets, five or 10 streets. This is not city-wide civil unrest like has happened in our city before. But if you watch the pictures, especially on national TV, you would think that the entire city has blown up into unrest, and this is just not true." ABC7 Los Angeles anchor Jory Rand cautioned law enforcement from escalating tensions by interfering and said on Sunday that they risked turning "what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators." Rep. Nanette Barragán, a Democrat who represents California's 44th Congressional District, said on CNN's "State of the Union" program Sunday, "We are having an administration that's targeting peaceful protests." Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who is widely believed to be eyeing a run for California governor, sparked controversy online when she referred to the unrest as "overwhelmingly peaceful." Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton posted on X, "California Governor Newsom didn't request the National Guard be deployed to his state following peaceful demonstrations. Trump sent them anyway. It's the first time in 60 years a president has made that choice. "Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump." While there were examples of some peaceful protests at the outset, by the end of the day Friday property destruction and violence broke out in a situation that became increasingly violent over the next few days and led to injured officers. "Last night, over 1,000 rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer funded property," the Department of Homeland Security said in a press release Saturday referring to the previous night. Several officers have been injured in the rioting, which included rocks and other projectiles being thrown at them, and dozens of people have been arrested related to the protests and rioting. Conservatives on social media have blasted the various media outlets and Democrats who have used peaceful phrasing to describe the protests despite the various examples of violence, property destruction and burning cars. President Donald Trump sent in the National Guard over the weekend, sparking outrage from local Democrats, and announced on Monday the mobilization of Marines to help quell the rioting.
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
How the $1,000-per-baby ‘Trump accounts' would work and who would benefit most
On the face of it, the so-called 'Trump accounts' — which would provide parents of newborns with $1,000 to invest on behalf of their child's future — would be a plus for many families. 'It's a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life,' President Donald Trump said Monday at a White House event. The five-year pilot program, which is included in the House-passed budget bill — also known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' now under consideration in the Senate — could give a financial leg up to a new generation to build savings for their education and beyond. While the proposal has its merits, it may not do as much as it could to help the tens of millions of families who will struggle to save for their children. 'This proposal meets some, but not all, of the best practices recommended by decades of research on early wealth-building programs,' said Madeline Brown, a senior policy associate at the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC-based think tank. Here is a look at how the program would work and who is likely to benefit most. Under the proposed 'Trump accounts' — initially called 'Money Account for Growth and Advancement' (MAGA) accounts — the federal government would put $1,000 into individual accounts for babies born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. To be eligible, the baby must be a US-born citizen, and both the parents and the baby must have Social Security numbers. The family and others may make annual contributions to the account so long as combined they don't exceed $5,000 a year, although nonprofits may be able to donate more. The money must be invested in a low-cost, diversified US stock index fund or equivalent, and no withdrawals may be made until the child turns 18. Taxes are deferred on growth until the money is withdrawn. The account is intended for expenses tied to higher education or 'post-secondary education credentialing,' buying a home or starting a small business. Distributions for qualified expenses will be treated as capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. But they will be taxed as ordinary income and subject to an additional 10% tax if an under-30 beneficiary uses them for other expenses. The pilot program gets good marks on two fronts: It will be universal and automatic: Parents won't have to do much to set up the account. 'It will maximize inclusion,' Brown said. '(Research shows) if you have an opt-in program, you're likely to see higher income families enrolling at higher rates.' That may be due to their having both greater awareness of the program and greater liquid assets that can be put toward savings, she said. It establishes federal assistance from Day 1 of a child's life: There has been bipartisan support for programs like 'baby bonds,' which are publicly funded trust accounts to give newborns a financial headstart. Although some states and cities have created similar programs, no federal initiative has been set up to date. But as proposed, the pilot program diverges from the best practices cited in early wealth building research in that: It is regressive: Every family — rich or poor, regardless of need — would get the same $1,000 per newborn. And because families with greater means will have a much easier time making their own contributions to the accounts on top of the initial $1,000, those families are likely to end up with far greater savings accumulation at the end of the day. In a report in March, the Milken Institute estimated that $1,000 invested in a broad equity index fund would grow to an average of $8,300 over 20 years. Any other savings contributed along the way by the family or the employer of the parents could greatly increase that account balance. If a family can't put in more on top of the initial $1,000 by the federal government, having $8,300 by age 20 is certainly better than nothing. Still, it may not go far in financing a college education or a down payment on a home. 'The structure favors families who already have the means to save. It's regressive by design,' said Michelle Dallafior, senior vice president of tax and budget at First Focus for Children, which noted on May 29 that the House reconciliation bill includes many provisions that would not help poorer Americans. The withdrawal rules are complex: Early wealth building programs work best when they provide ease of access and use, Brown said. But the current proposal's withdrawals are confusing and limiting. For instance, only half of the cash value of the account may be withdrawn between the beneficiary's 18th and 25th birthdays. Brown also notes there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds. That means families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal.
