The Florida Supreme Court on November 30 ruled against the attempt by police officers and other crime victims to shield their identity under Marsy’s Law, a 2018 constitutional amendment aimed at providing additional rights to victims of crimes.

The ruling was prompted by two incidents in Tallahassee in 2020 in which officers fatally shot suspects. When reporters sought the names of the officers involved, the officers, supported by the Florida Police Benevolent Association, argued that their names should be exempt because they were assaulted by the people they shot, and were therefore victims.

In the opinion written by Justice John Couriel, the Supreme Court ruled that “Marsy’s Law does not guarantee to a victim the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.”

The court clarified that Marsy’s Law addresses a victim’s right to prevent the disclosure of information that could be used to locate them, and providing a name alone “communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered.”

Marsy’s Law, approved by approximately 62% of voters, grants crime victims enhanced rights, including the right to prevent the disclosure of information that could lead to locating or harassing the victim or their family.

The court’s ruling applies not only to police officers but to crime victims more broadly.

Couriel said that there is no textual basis in Marsy’s Law for the idea that victims’ names are categorically immune from disclosure.

The group Marsy’s Law for Florida expressed disappointment in the ruling being applied to all crime victims.

Last month, the organization opposed using the law to protect the names of law enforcement officers using force on duty, but it deemed this ruling too broad.

“With the technology available in today’s day and age, it defies common logic that access to a victim’s name cannot be used to locate or harass that victim,” the group’s spokesperson said.

Couriel noted that the ruling doesn’t prevent the Legislature from expanding the law to exempt more information, but noted that Marsy’s Law, as it stands, does not “guarantee to crime victims a generalized right of anonymity.”

John Kazanjian, president of the Florida Police Benevolent Association, was shocked at the court’s interpretation, stating that lawmakers have been reaching out to him, and he intends to push for changes in the law.

“We’re gonna get this thing fixed,” he stated.

The court also highlighted that explicitly prohibiting a victim’s name from being disclosed could interfere with a defendant’s right to confront their accuser, which is often critical for cross-examination to determine bias or credibility.

The ruling received mixed reactions from law enforcement in Florida, with Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri siding with the City of Tallahassee.

Gualtieri favored releasing the names of the officers, stating that an officer who shoots and kills someone is not a victim of the shooting.

He also noted that it would enhance public transparency.

“Suspicion breeds contempt. We don’t need suspicion or contempt from the public about what we do,” Gualtieri said.

The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office took the opposite stance, filing a motion in favor of shielding officers’ names.

In addition, some law enforcement agencies were using Marsy’s Law to automatically withhold the names of all crime victims, regardless of the severity of the crime.

The St. Petersburg Police Department, which previously withheld officers’ names “if applicable,” announced that it would no longer do so based on the ruling.

The decision has implications for government transparency, with media organizations and advocates considering it a victory.

An attorney for the News Media Coalition, which intervened in the case, said the decision is “a win for government transparency” and prevents police officers from shielding their names in on-duty shootings.

The group Marsy’s Law for Florida last month opposed applying the law to officers who use force on duty, stating that the right to privacy of their name must yield to the public’s right to know when reviewing the conduct of an on-duty law enforcement officer who has used physical force.