OUR VIEW
Legislature should clear up Marsys Law
OUR POSITION: Lawmakers are remiss if they do not pass legislation this year to clear up how Marsys Law can/should be used regarding law enforcement officers whose names are hidden when they use force, including killing, suspects in an arrest.
Lawmakers in Tallahassee should listen to the Charlotte County Sheriffs Office before they dismiss a bill to clarify the use of Marsys Law regarding law enforcement officers.
We want legislators to take up this law and give us some clarification, said Andres A-Rod Rodriguez, administrative director for the CCSO.
Rodriguez spoke to members of the media last week in addressing Marsys Law, which was approved by Florida voters and is now Amendment 6 on the Florida Constitution. It is a law that has found favor in several states and pushed by a California doctor whose family member bumped into a person at the supermarket charged with killing his sister. They were not aware the man had been released from jail.
Marsys Law is not a bad law. The problem we see is that many law enforcement departments have interpreted it to allow officers who shoot and wound or kill a suspect in the line of duty as being covered under the law. Officers, they say, are victims because the suspect has attacked or shot at them.
The Charlotte County Sheriffs Office has used Marsys Law twice in the past year to shield the identity of officers who have killed someone. Last year officers were called to a home in Englewood where a man was allegedly drunk and threatening people with a gun. A shootout ensued and officers fired at the man 48 times, hitting him twice and killing
him in front of his home.
More recently, an officer shot and killed someone who pulled out a gun during a traffic stop. No names of officers have been released in either case.
Legislators have had the opportunity to take up the law this session and clarify if officers who shoot someone in the line of duty should be covered under Amendment 6, or if that is part of their job and their names should be made public. We believe the public has a right to know the names of officers who shoot and kill someone even if there is no reason to suspect they did anything wrong.
We understand that one group fighting the legislation in Tallahassee is the union representing police.
That is no surprise since it is the Jacksonville, Florida Fraternal Order of Police, Consolidated Lodge 5-30, that has filed a suit against Duval County Sheriff Mike Williams to keep him from releasing names of officers involved in shootings there.
The petitioners in that suit are following the same logic as the Charlotte County Sheriffs Office that law officers as the same as civilians and their right to privacy under Marsys Law is guaranteed. Of course, as the law states, the victim (law officers or civilian) must ask for that right to privacy. In both Charlotte County Sheriffs Office incidents the officers involved have made that request.
We need to make it clear, once and for all, if the intent of the law extends to protecting the names of police who discharge their guns and kill someone in the line of duty.
Legislature should clear up Marsys Law
OUR POSITION: Lawmakers are remiss if they do not pass legislation this year to clear up how Marsys Law can/should be used regarding law enforcement officers whose names are hidden when they use force, including killing, suspects in an arrest.
Lawmakers in Tallahassee should listen to the Charlotte County Sheriffs Office before they dismiss a bill to clarify the use of Marsys Law regarding law enforcement officers.
We want legislators to take up this law and give us some clarification, said Andres A-Rod Rodriguez, administrative director for the CCSO.
Rodriguez spoke to members of the media last week in addressing Marsys Law, which was approved by Florida voters and is now Amendment 6 on the Florida Constitution. It is a law that has found favor in several states and pushed by a California doctor whose family member bumped into a person at the supermarket charged with killing his sister. They were not aware the man had been released from jail.
Marsys Law is not a bad law. The problem we see is that many law enforcement departments have interpreted it to allow officers who shoot and wound or kill a suspect in the line of duty as being covered under the law. Officers, they say, are victims because the suspect has attacked or shot at them.
The Charlotte County Sheriffs Office has used Marsys Law twice in the past year to shield the identity of officers who have killed someone. Last year officers were called to a home in Englewood where a man was allegedly drunk and threatening people with a gun. A shootout ensued and officers fired at the man 48 times, hitting him twice and killing
him in front of his home.
More recently, an officer shot and killed someone who pulled out a gun during a traffic stop. No names of officers have been released in either case.
Legislators have had the opportunity to take up the law this session and clarify if officers who shoot someone in the line of duty should be covered under Amendment 6, or if that is part of their job and their names should be made public. We believe the public has a right to know the names of officers who shoot and kill someone even if there is no reason to suspect they did anything wrong.
We understand that one group fighting the legislation in Tallahassee is the union representing police.
That is no surprise since it is the Jacksonville, Florida Fraternal Order of Police, Consolidated Lodge 5-30, that has filed a suit against Duval County Sheriff Mike Williams to keep him from releasing names of officers involved in shootings there.
The petitioners in that suit are following the same logic as the Charlotte County Sheriffs Office that law officers as the same as civilians and their right to privacy under Marsys Law is guaranteed. Of course, as the law states, the victim (law officers or civilian) must ask for that right to privacy. In both Charlotte County Sheriffs Office incidents the officers involved have made that request.
We need to make it clear, once and for all, if the intent of the law extends to protecting the names of police who discharge their guns and kill someone in the line of duty.