Marcy’s law

[Unregistered]

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FLORIDA
POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELASE ​​​​ ​​​MEDIA CONTACT:
April 6, 2021​​​​​​​​ Michael Skelly 917-364-8142

IN A MAJOR VICTORY IN THE FIGHT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF POLICE OFFICERS, FLORIDA’S FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES A LOWER COURT’S DECISION AND RULES THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE PROTECTED UNDER MARSY’S LAW

TALLAHASSEE- In a landmark decision that will have significant implications for law enforcement officers across the State of Florida, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA), reversed a Trial Court’s previous ruling that asserted law enforcement officers did not meet the definition of a crime victim and thus could not be afforded the same protections under Marsy’s law, as every other citizen in the State of Florida.

The DCA's decision stems from a previous case held before a Trial Court in Tallahassee, where in two separate encounters, crime suspects threatened Tallahassee police officers with deadly force. Faced with the imminent threat of harm, the officers responded in kind, resulting in fatalities. Following the encounters, the City of Tallahassee revealed its intent to disclose the identities of the police officers to the public. The Florida PBA opposed the disclosure of the officers’ identities and sought a declaration from the Trial Court that the officers were entitled to the protections granted to crime victims under Article I, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution. Additionally, the Florida PBA asked the court to prevent the City of Tallahassee from disclosing any personal information that could be used to identify and locate the officers. The Trial Court determined that the protections afforded crime victims under Florida's Constitution were unavailable to law enforcement officers, even when a crime suspect threatened an officer with deadly force. The court also ruled that their names were not entitled to confidential treatment.

In today’s decision reversing the lower court’s ruling, the DCA asserted that, “The express purpose of Article I, Section 16 is to preserve and protect certain rights of crime victims. A crime victim is a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act or against whom the crime or delinquent act is committed. A police officer meets the definition of a crime victim under Article I when a crime suspect threatens the officer with deadly force, placing the officer in fear for his life.” Accordingly, the DCA reversed the Trial Court’s order directing the City of Tallahassee to disclose public records that would reveal the identities of the two officers. The DCA also reversed the Trial Court’s judgment declaring that the protections afforded crime victims under Article I, Section 16 are not available to law enforcement officers.

Commenting on today’s landmark ruling, Florida PBA General Counsel Stephanie Dobson Webster said, “Today’s ruling by the DCA is a major victory in our ongoing fight to protect the rights of Florida’s law enforcement officers who are also crime victims. Our brave men and women who serve on the frontlines of public safety and find themselves in deadly situations, shouldn’t have to check their rights at the door and have their safety and security compromised as a result of situations they themselves did not cause. It is also a victory for every crime victim because this shows it doesn’t matter what your profession is to be considered a victim of a crime. This is precedent-setting law in Florida, which no other court has ruled on. Moving forward, the Florida PBA will continue to protect our members' legal rights whenever they are challenged and we will vigorously pursue their defense as far as we can go.”

[Unregistered]

Great job PBA!

[Unregistered]

Thank you PBA!!

[Unregistered]

Any reason why the PBA has not informed the members officially? I hardly take this site as truth. Anyways, reading this law it says that we have to tell the agency not to release our name.am I missing something?

[Unregistered]

Any reason why the PBA has not informed the members officially? I hardly take this site as truth. Anyways, reading this law it says that we have to tell the agency not to release our name.am I missing something?

It’s weird that the PBA did this but didn’t fix the pension or allow people to opt back in or keep frs opt in mandatory. Good work on this part but it’s really a bigger issue with the frs. How can we retire if we won’t have funding in several years?

[Unregistered]

It’s weird that the PBA did this but didn’t fix the pension or allow people to opt back in or keep frs opt in mandatory. Good work on this part but it’s really a bigger issue with the frs. How can we retire if we won’t have funding in several years?

Special risk, law enforcement officers, can remain in the FRS pension program. What part of that do you not understand.

[Unregistered]

It’s weird that the PBA did this but didn’t fix the pension or allow people to opt back in or keep frs opt in mandatory. Good work on this part but it’s really a bigger issue with the frs. How can we retire if we won’t have funding in several years?

The PBA is not responsible for any part of this. The republicans didn’t want to be viewed as defunding police. This is why they left special risk employees alone. The system will collapse with all contributing. This is why you don’t see the opt in or other items you mentioned. These are sad 😢 realities of the future.

The house until the 30th to finalize the deal.

[Unregistered]

They are chipping away piece by piece. This time the firefighters were able to exempt special risk but that will soon change and special risk will lose it as well. And what will the PBA do? Simple, they will continue to support those who screw us. They will continue to give them money from what we pay in dues. They will lend our name to ensure they get re-elected.