Release of information Act - Did Anyone break the law in some released information?

Friptzap said:

AHAH! but they gave the information to the FSAO!

Plus that just seemed too long for the title.....

Click to expand...

Friptzap: The OCSD is in no way responsible for what happens to the information once it is passed on to the SAO. You need to change the name of this thread.

Themis said:

Government attorneys generally do not have E&O insurance. Government entities are generally self insured or have a pool with other governmental entities. Ultimately, the taxpayer is the insurer.

Click to expand...

I was just kidding around Themis

jennjenn said:

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. I am still curious what allowed the State to release those phone records to the public with all those phone numbers in them......can anyone explain that....I have seen links to statues but Im knee deep in my own course work and not really looking to take up law

Click to expand...

They were Discovery documents. All evidence that LE collects that they plan on using in court, or that could clear her has to be turned over to the defense in discovery. Discovery must be filed with the clerks office. As a citizen you have a right to anything that is public record. Anything filed with the courts is public record. Just like you can go down and get marriage and divorce records, bankruptcy and deed records, etc. As a citizen you have a right to watch cases and see your government in action as well as reviewing these documents yourself. The laws, IIRC vary from state to state and for some reason, I think I remember that not all states are required to give things to people that do not live in their state. I was worried about that with this case because I wanted to see everything.

Friptzap said:

AHAH! but they gave the information to the FSAO!

Plus that just seemed too long for the title.....

Click to expand...

OCSO was the investigating body , once they turn it over to FSAO they are no longer responcable . I believe Cindy made a trip to FSCO to file a complaint regarding info that was released about her , concerned about identity theft. Or at least that's what she said she was there for . Kinda funny if you think about it .


The attempt was made in most cases to blacken out info.by FSAO The media could have also done a better job concealing private info once they got their hands on it . Now I noticed in the newer doc. that they did a better job concealing private info . Live & Learn

I have to agree thou I would be pretty upset if my private info was put out there for the taking . The parties involved do have a right to file a complaint and seek damages if they feel they are justified in doing so .

Once it is filed with the clerk's office, then it is public record. However, I think the media should have been more responsible in releasing that information. I would not want my personal info being viewed on every website in the country!
Some of these people will have their names thrown around for years and this case has affected a lot of people, not just ZFG. That's all I will say about her.

TxLady2 said:

Once it is filed with the clerk's office, then it is public record. However, I think the media should have been more responsible in releasing that information. I would not want my personal info being viewed on every website in the country!
Some of these people will have their names thrown around for years and this case has affected a lot of people, not just ZFG. That's all I will say about her.

Click to expand...

Amen to that! Normally you have to go to the hassle of going to the courts and finding what you want and paying for the copies and so most people don't exercise their rights to the stuff...very few. We are a rare breed here guys! And normally there isn't nearly as much info. I can't imagine nationwide, if not world wide having all of my business spread out like that.

Another thing is when you black out things with a regular marker when faxed it will not be blacked out..learned this the hard way when I worked with sensitive materials way back when I actually worked..:crazy:

HRCODEPINK said:

Wooooooow...that's not good. I haven't read the full statutes yet, but I can't help but wonder if they might have not even thought about it because I would be willing to bet that the law was intended to protect the officers working the case, not the ones that are witnesses. But like I said, I have not read the law, I just assume that because it makes the most sense. How often, really are LE involved in something as crazy as this...has there ever been anything as crazy as this? You know what I mean. Especially with there being multiple persons in LE! You den't expect to find someone being involved in something like this who made the rounds at the police academy. I wonder if GA counts? He wasn't LE in Florida. I'll have to come back and read that tomorrow.

Regardless of any of it, if that is the law, it is the law and it is a good one in my opinion. Someone should be held accountable.

Click to expand...

To protect ALL officers from someone coming after them. Certain persons are protected in public record like that. Cops are one of them. Doesn't matter if they are a wittness or the officer of record. Someone might want that info for revenge.

Spangle said:

To protect ALL officers from someone coming after them. Certain persons are protected in public record like that. Cops are one of them. Doesn't matter if they are a wittness or the officer of record. Someone might want that info for revenge.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

I feel for all these people, their addresses and everything else out there for all. BTW, the FL Secretary of State's website was down this weekend for maintenance to remove SS#'s

I hate that the personal information was given out ( not blocked out ) but I really can't muster up much concern right now for anyone's privacy.

Get Caylee back, get justice for her, and then, as NG would say "unleash the lawyers".

JBean said:

I think we have another thread on that topic.
Please don't start posting about that in here. Two completely different topics.

Click to expand...

Sorry I was just responding to a question asked, which related to my comment about how if the proverbial "we" are trying to protect one persons rights we should be willing to point out the need for other peoples rights that are being torn away at in this case as well.

gardenhart said:

Subsection 4 has to do with agency personel information and that's the section of 119.70 that was amended by this bill. It has nothing to do with the material released in this case.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the case here in regards to the law it applies to which is Public Records. Freedom of information act allows for release of information into public record. The exemption above is from a bill enacted to provide exemptions for the following florida Statute regarding the release of public records:

119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records

DELETED THE INCORRECT SECTION SEE MY POST BELOW FOR THE CORRECT SECTION

Sorry I did not paste all of this section of the law the first time, I thought it was too long and that people would do some research on their own for the MUCH data found there. And sorry but I will not paste the entire law either lol the post will be 20 web pages long. There are 5 pdf pages as it is just for the

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 766

which is where the amendment comes from.

Here is another link directly to the statute if you are interested:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES...TM&Title=->2008->Ch0119->Section 071#0119.071

But imho this does indeed apply.

Friptzap said:

It has everything to do with the case here in regards to the law it applies to which is Public Records. Freedom of information act allows for release of information into public record. The exemption above is from a bill enacted to provide exemptions for the following florida Statute regarding the release of public records:

119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records

(1) AGENCY ADMINISTRATION.--

(I skipped a,b and c as they do not apply here.)


(d)1. 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 public officer or agency to protect or represent the interests of the agency having custody of the record) or prepared at the attorney's express direction, that reflects a mental impression, conclusion, litigation strategy, or legal theory of the attorney or the agency, and that 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. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution until the conclusion of the litigation or adversarial administrative proceedings. For purposes of capital collateral litigation as set forth in s. 27.7001, the Attorney General's office is entitled to claim this exemption for those public records prepared for direct appeal as well as for all capital collateral litigation after direct appeal until execution of sentence or imposition of a life sentence. 2. This exemption is not waived by the release of such public record to another public employee or officer of the same agency or any person consulted by the agency attorney. When asserting the right to withhold a public record pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall identify the potential parties to any such criminal or civil litigation or adversarial administrative proceedings. If a court finds that the document or other record has been improperly withheld under this paragraph, the party seeking access to such document or record shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs in addition to any other remedy ordered by the court.

Sorry I did not paste all of this section of the law the first time, I thought it was too long and that people would do some research on their own for the MUCH data found there. And sorry but I will not paste the entire law either lol the post will be 20 web pages long. There are 5 pdf pages as it is just for the

Committee Substitute for​

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 766

which is where the amendment comes from.

Here is another link directly to the statute if you are interested:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES...TM&Title=->2008->Ch0119->Section 071#0119.071

But imho this does indeed apply.


Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDSChapter 119
PUBLIC RECORDSView Entire Chapter

Click to expand...

This bill is amending subsection 4, not 1. That section deals only with agency personnel information.

gardenhart said:

This bill is amending subsection 4, not 1. That section deals only with agency personnel information.

Click to expand...

Sigh.....

It is amending section one of paragraph D of subsection 4 Still applies though as this section is also an exemption for the statute regarding:
119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.-- :

(4) AGENCY PERSONNEL INFORMATION.--

(d)1.a. The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, personnel of the Department of Children and Family Services whose duties include the investigation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, fraud, theft, or other criminal activities, personnel of the Department of Health whose duties are to support the investigation of child abuse or neglect, and personnel of the Department of Revenue or local governments whose responsibilities include revenue collection and enforcement or child support enforcement; 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). The home addresses, telephone numbers, and photographs of firefighters certified in compliance with s. 633.35; the home addresses, telephone numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such firefighters; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such firefighters are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses and telephone numbers of justices of the Supreme Court, district court of appeal judges, circuit court judges, and county court judges; the home addresses, telephone numbers, and places of employment of the spouses and children of justices and judges; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of justices and judges are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

So the original revisions from my first post are for the above section and it itself is an excemption for inspection or copying of public records. Which is regarding Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDSChapter 119
PUBLIC RECORDSView Entire Chapter

Am I missing anything else? Or anything else look off base now?

I hope that helps I guess I flip flopped the numbers when looking at it the first time.

And this Statute is the main statute that these additional exemptions regard:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES...y_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0119/Sec07.HTM

119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions.--

Friptzap said:

And this Statute is the main statute that these additional exemptions regard:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES...y_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0119/Sec07.HTM

119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions.--

Click to expand...

Sigh yourself. Go back and read the law. I'd suggest in particular 119.07 subsection 8 and 119.0714 subsection 1

Once again, the section of the law that was amended deals with agency personnel information and not any other material that might be requested.

gardenhart said:

Sigh yourself. Go back and read the law. I'd suggest in particular 119.07 subsection 8 and 119.0714 subsection 1

Once again, the section of the law that was amended deals with agency personnel information and not any other material that might be requested.

Click to expand...

I was making a sigh because I copied the wrong section.

It deals with AGENCY personal information, I did READ IT! no need to be rude!
That Bill modifying AGENCY information is part of exemptions in this section of the statute:
119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.-- :

WHICH are GENERAL EXEMPTIONS for THIS STATUTE:
119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions.--

caps are meerly for the important parts....

I am one who thinks all rights should be protected no matter what the situation is. If I am a witness to an event and as a witness I am helping with the prosecution in a case, I would've wanted my privacy protected. The personal info should've been blacked out before being handed over to the media. And the media should've double checked and black out if any were left. Though I do understand the public wanted information ASAP pertaining to this case, personal information should've been blacked out first.