As a Brevard County attorney that advocates for all persons – including the criminally accused and victims – I often find myself at the intersection of individual rights and law enforcement accountability. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision regarding Marsy’s Law is a significant development in this delicate balance. The court’s unanimous decision that Marsy’sLaw cannot be used to shield the identities of police officers involved in deadly force incidents is a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications.

Marsy’s Law and Police Anonymity: A Misinterpretation Corrected

Marsy’s Law established rights for crime victims in Florida in 2018. Police departments then began using the law as justification to keep the names of individual officers from the public after police-related shootings and deaths. For example, after the death of Veteran Gregory Edwards following a use of force at the Brevard County Jail, Sheriff Wayne Ivey redacted the names of officers from publicly released reports under the justification that they were the victims of a crime – Veteran Edwards’ resistance.  

In the recent landmark ruling, the Florida Police Benevolent Association (PFBA) filed an emergency injunction to keep the City of Tallahassee from releasing the names of two officers who fatally shot suspects. The City and First Amendment advocates argued that Marsy’s Law was never intended to allow officers to escape public scrutiny or accountability, especially in cases involving deadly force. The Supreme Court’s ruling aligns with this understanding:“Marsy’s Law guarantees no victim – police officer or otherwise – the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.”  City of Tallahassee v. Fla. Police Benevolent Ass’n, SC2021-0651 (Nov. 30, 2023).

The Importance of Transparency in Law Enforcement

Transparency is crucial in law enforcement to maintain public trust and ensure justice. Police officers, endowed with significant authority, must be accountable to the public. Hiding their identities in use-of-force incidents could undermine this accountability, leading to mistrust and a lack of confidence in the system. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the necessity of transparency, particularly in cases involving the use of lethal force by police officers.

First Amendment Advocates and the Quest for Government Transparency

The ruling is a victory for First Amendment advocates and those who champion government transparency. By preventing the misuse of Marsy’s Law to conceal officers’ identities, the court has upheld the public’s right to be informed about law enforcement activities, especially in critical incidents like officer-involved shootings.

The Nationwide Impact of the Decision

This decision is not just a statewide matter; it has national implications. It sets a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues and sends a clear message about the limits of laws designed to protect crime victims. As such, it reinforces the notion that law enforcement is not above the law and must be subject to public scrutiny.

Balancing Victim Rights with Public Interest

While the primary intention of Marsy’s Law was to protect victims, it is essential to balance these protections with the public’s right to know, particularly in instances involving public servants like police officers. The Supreme Court stressed that crime victims still have the right to prevent disclosure of information that could be used to locate or harass them.  However, the decision rightly focuses on this balance, ensuring that victim rights do not overshadow the need for transparency in public institutions or the right of the criminally accused to confront witnesses..

A Step Towards Greater Accountability

As an attorney who fights for individual constitutional rights, I see this ruling as a step towards greater accountability in law enforcement. It is a reminder that while the rights of victims are paramount, they should not be used as a shield for those in positions of power to evade public scrutiny. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is a commendable move in upholding the principles of transparency and accountability, essential in a just and fair legal system.

~Jessica J. Travis, Attorney – www.DefendBrevard.com – Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Victim’s Rights, Public Records – Since 1999

This article is not intended to provide legal advice.  Consult an attorney if you need legal advice.

The post Police Cannot Hide Identity Behind Marsy’s Law Per Florida Supreme Court:  The Implications From An Attorney’s Perspective appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

Brevard’s Local Courts Fall Under the 18^th Judicial Circuit

Our local courts make up the 18^th Judicial Circuit which includes Brevard and Seminole Counties.  Our elected 18^th Judicial Circuit officers control what happens in our local courts.  State Attorney Phil Archer and  Public Defender Blaise Trettis have offices in Brevard and Seminole Counties.  Brevard Clerk of Court Rachel Sadoff has offices at all of the Brevard County courthouses located in Melbourne, Viera, and Titusville.

Brevard’s Appellate Court Is the Fifth District Court Of Appeals Which Has Different Boundaries

However, Brevard’s appellate court – the judges who oversee appeals – is the Fifth District Court of Appeals which is located in Daytona, Volusia County.  If all the local courts falling under the Fifth District Court of Appeals were to be consolidated, that could mean that our elected judicial officers may not be local.  They could be from any county under the jurisdiction of the Fifth District Court of Appeals – Volusia, Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Clay, Putnam, Flagler, Marion, Citrus, Hernando, Sumter, Lake, Seminole, and Brevard.

Proponents Argue Efficiency; Opponents Argue Against Loss of Local Control; Politics May Be At Play

Advocates of the plan assert that consolidation will make the courts more operationally efficient and result in cost savings.  Opponents argue that the plan means a loss of local control and would make access to courts more difficult.  Some argue the plan is political ‘gerrymandering’ because it would dilute the rights of voters in counties with more Democrats by consolidating them with counties that have more Republicans.

Committee Recommends Against Consolidation

On December 1, 202, after months of hearings and deliberations, the committee evaluating the consolidation plan recommended that the Florida Supreme Court not consolidate the local courts.  It added that efficiency can be improved by hiring more courthouse staff and increasing their pay, and through the use of technology.

Florida Legislature Makes Final Decision

But the Florida Legislature has the final say.  The Florida Supreme Court will now review the committee’s report and make a final recommendation to the legislature.  The legislature can either adopt the supreme court’s recommendation or override it with a two-thirds vote from both the Florida House and Senate.

~Jessica J. Travis, Attorney – www.DefendBrevard.com – Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Victim’s Rights, Public Records – Since 1999

This article is not intended to provide legal advice.  Consult an attorney if you need legal advice.

The post Could Brevard County’s Elected State Attorney, Public Defender, And Clerk Of Court Be From Daytona Or Jacksonville? appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

In this specific case, even an elected official, Brevard School Board member Jennifer Jenkins find herself in the position many citizens do when meeting resistance from producing public records. She requested the public records of fellow School Board member Matt Susin, and after months of non-compliance with Florida law, was forced to file a lawsuit in order to have the courts force him to comply with Florida’s Sunshine Laws.

Unfortunately, Mr. Susin is still resisting the release of the public records, and enjoying tax payer funds to defend his actions. He has filed for a motion to dismiss the case. Arguments were heard on the motion earlier this week, and we await a ruling from the court.

Below is the original lawsuit filed on Mrs. Jenkins’ behalf, as well as our response to the motion to dismiss.

The post What a public records lawsuit looks like appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

Following a lawsuit brought by the Florida Justice Institute and
the law firm of DefendBrevard.com alleging violations of the First Amendment and Florida’s
Government in the Sunshine law, Brevard County has made final revisions to an ordinance that
now permits all people to speak at County Commission meetings, regardless of their criminal
record. The lawsuit ended in a settlement, with the County paying damages to the three plaintiffs.
After a settlement conference with a federal magistrate judge, the County also agreed to pay
$150,000 for the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, bringing a formal end to the legal dispute.

“We’re happy that the Brevard County government is now truly open to everyone,” said lead
plaintiffs’ lawyer Ray Taseff of the Florida Justice Institute. “Cities and counties should take note
that they cannot restrict who attends their public meetings.”

The lawsuit was precipitated by a Brevard County ordinance which prohibits people on the sex
offender registry from being within 1000 feet of a school, day care, or park. Because the Brevard
County Government Center is within 1000 feet of a school—and the ordinance had no exceptions
for attending public meetings—sex offenders were prohibited from attending County Commission
meetings—even as the Commission expanded the reach of the ordinance that affected their lives.

Three Plaintiffs sued, and the County later amended the ordinance to create an exception for
attending a public government meeting. On May 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs attended their first
Brevard County Commission meeting in years. In their historic appearance, the three men spoke
during the public comment portion, informing the Commissioners on how the remainder of the
ordinance affects their lives. For example, the onerous restrictions limit their ability to take loved
ones to the hospital or attend events with their grandchildren. They also live in fear of arrest
because there is no map indicating where they are not permitted to go in the County.

“It is important that every single citizen be able to address their elected officials, regardless of who
they are or what their background may be. I’m proud we were able to achieve this for the citizens
of Brevard County, Florida,” said attorney Jessica J. Travis of the law firm of DefendBrevard.com.

The case is Rinaldi et al. v. Brevard County, Case No. 22-CV-00023 in the Middle District of
Florida, and was handled by Ray Taseff and Dante Trevisani of the nonprofit Florida Justice
Institute, and Jessica Travis of DefendBrevard.com For more information, contact Ray Taseff,
rtaseff@floridajusticeinstitute.org, 305-586-4502.

The post Brevard County Revises Ordinance that Restricted Attendance at Public Meetings and Pays $150,000 to Resolve Attorneys’ Fees in Civil Rights Case appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

Recently, our firm was able to obtain favorable financial compensation for a client who lost his son in an ATV roll-over accident.

Losing a loved one due to a wrongful death incident is a tragic experience for families. It can be a confusing and overwhelming time, and many families may not know what legal options they have. As a wrongful death attorney in Florida, I have seen firsthand how important it is for families to have an attorney to represent them during this difficult time, especially when considering the statute of limitations.

What is Wrongful Death Under Florida Law?

Wrongful death under Florida law occurs when a person dies as a result of someone else’s negligence, default, breach of contract, or tortious conduct. Wrongful death can occur in various situations, such as car accidents, medical malpractice, workplace accidents, and defective products.

• Car Accidents: If a person is killed in a car accident caused by another driver’s negligence, their surviving family members may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit.
• Medical Malpractice: If a person dies due to a medical professional’s negligence or failure to provide proper care, their surviving family members may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit.
• Workplace Accidents: If a person dies in a workplace accident due to their employer’s negligence or failure to provide a safe working environment, their surviving family members may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit.
• Defective Products: If a person dies due to a defective product, such as a faulty airbag or dangerous medication, their surviving family members may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit.

In Florida, the surviving spouse, children, or parents of the deceased person can file a wrongful death lawsuit. However, in some cases, the personal representative of the deceased person’s estate may also file a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the surviving family members.

What Are the Legal Options in Florida?

If you have lost a loved one due to a wrongful death incident, you may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida. The statute of limitations for filing a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida is two years from the date of the deceased person’s death. If the lawsuit is not filed within the two-year period, the court may dismiss it, and the surviving family members may lose their right to seek compensation for their losses.

The purpose of a wrongful death lawsuit is to seek compensation for the losses the surviving family members have suffered as a result of their loved one’s death. These losses can include medical expenses, funeral expenses, lost wages, and loss of companionship. An experienced wrongful death attorney can help you determine the appropriate damages for your case and seek fair compensation on your behalf.

Why is it Important to Have an Attorney in Florida?

Having an attorney is crucial in a wrongful death case in Florida. An attorney can provide you with legal guidance, help you navigate the complex legal process, and ensure that your legal rights are protected. They can also investigate the incident, gather evidence, and build a strong case on your behalf.

An attorney can also negotiate with insurance companies and other parties involved in the case to ensure that you receive fair compensation for your losses. Insurance companies and other parties may try to offer a quick settlement that is less than what you are entitled to. An attorney can help you understand the true value of your case and negotiate on your behalf to ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve.

If you have lost a loved one due to a wrongful death incident in Florida, it is important to seek the advice and representation of an experienced attorney. The statute of limitations for filing a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida is two years from the date of the deceased person’s death. Without an attorney, families may not understand the legal options available to them or the true value of their case. An attorney can protect your legal rights, help you navigate the legal process, and ensure that you receive fair compensation for your losses. 

Your team at DefendBrevard.com will include Jessica J. Travis, an attorney since 1999, a certified paralegal, and a civil case manager who worked for an insurance company for over twenty years.  Put our experience in your corner and let us help you through this difficult time.

The post When Grief Meets Injustice: Holding Those Responsible for Wrongful Death appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

As many of you know, I was one of the attorneys representing Florida Today in their fight to get the jail video released that showed what happened to Veteran Edwards.  Sheriff Ivey fought us tooth and nail.  After we got the video released, other attorneys filed a federal lawsuit alleging wrongful death and violation of Edwards’s constitutional rights.  The federal judge has dismissed the case agreeing with the sheriff’s claim that the deputies did not violate Gregory Edwards’s rights.

The court’s dismissal wrongly concludes that facts were not in dispute.  Motions for summary judgment should only be granted if there are no disputed facts.  Here, the ‘facts’ relied upon by the judge were contradicted or contrary to the video.  For example:

• The court found that it was not unreasonable to leave Edwards in the restraint chair because Edwards continued to struggle after being strapped in.  The judge did not appear to take into consideration the pain that Edwards would have been experiencing from sitting on the taser barbs that the deputies failed to remove, something that the judge acknowledged later in the order.  (Order, p. 28.)

• The judge excused the failure to remove the taser barbs because Edwards was strapped down, but ignored that the video shows several deputies circled around the rolling restraint chair who could have removed the barbs.  (Order, p. 28.)                       

• The judge found that the pepper spray, which was not wiped off, only caused mucus and saliva on Edwards’s face and ignored that pepper spray would cause mucus to run down the throat of someone who is strapped in a restraint chair with his head tilted back, gasping for air.  (Order, p. 31, 47.)

• The court reasoned that because Edwards made no “intelligible complaints” about the effects of the pepper spray, that the spray and failure to decontaminate did not rise to a violation of his constitutional rights.  The judge disregarded that Edwards may have had difficulty speaking due to the effects of the pepper spray and that the deputies had placed a spit hood on Edwards, leaving him alone in a room where no one could hear possible complaints.  (Order, p. 30.)  Further, it should be noted that since there is no audio on the jail video; there is no record of whether Edwards asked for help.

What happened to Veteran Edwards is a perfect example of why police immunity – aka, qualified immunity – needs to be abolished.  Qualified immunity was put in place so officers could feel free to do their jobs without being sued.  But qualified immunity is being abused too often – especially when no one is held accountable for beating, tasing, pepper-spraying, spit-hooding, and strapping a citizen into a restraint chair forcing him to sit on taser barbs, until he goes unconscious and ultimately dies.

Say his name:  GREGORY EDWARDS

Say it with me:  ABOLISH POLICE IMMUNITY – NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE

Thank You For Your Service, Gregory Edwards.

~ Jessica J. Travis

The post No Justice for Gregory Edwards, Brevard’s Own Two-Tour Combat Army Medic Veteran Who Died After A Trip To The Brevard County Jail appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

When Brevard military veteran Gregory Edwards died after a struggle at the Brevard County Jail, the Sheriff’s Department refused to release the name of the officer who initially leg-swept Edwards to the ground on a claim that the officer was a “crime victim” whose name was confidential under Marsy’s Law.  Marsy’s Law, set forth in Art. I, § 16 of the Florida Constitution, gives Florida crime victims various rights, including the right to keep their identity confidential.  Police are not mentioned in Marsy’s Law but the police have been using this law to block public records requests that inquire about police-involved shootings.

The issue is currently in front of the Florida Supreme Court in Fla. Police Benevolent Ass’n v. City of Tallahassee, 314 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2021), rvw granted No. SC21-651, 2021 Fla. LEXIS 2031, 2021 WL 6014966 (Fla. Dec. 21, 2021).  Around the time of George Floyd’s murder, Tallahassee officers were involved in two separate shootings.  The Florida Police Benevolent Association brought suit seeking an injunction to prevent the city of Tallahassee from releasing the names of the officers, arguing that they were crime victims under Marsy’s Law. The counter argument is that Marsy’s Law was never meant to prevent public scrutiny of the police by keeping officers anonymous and doing  so interferes with the right of access to public records under Art. I, § 24(a) of the Florida Constitution.  It is hoped that the Florida Supreme Court will harmonize the rights of crime victims with the public’s right to information.

However, bill SB 492 is currently pending in the Florida Senate and, if passed, it will also prevent the public from knowing the names of officers involved in shootings or police-related deaths.  The bill purports to protect officers by preventing their names from going public when they are “crime victims” and seeking leave after a police-involved death. Considering the broad interpretation that law enforcement has applied to the term “victim,” every officer involved in police-related death would be a homicide victim.  Most officers are put on leave or take leave after being involved in a death.  The practical result would be another hurdle that blocks the public from being able to scrutinize the job of law enforcement.

SB 492 is not yet law and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling may or may not render it meaningless.  However, there is no reason to think that efforts to protect the police, despite blocking the public’s right to information, will stop anytime soon.

For more information on this and other First Amendment issues, follow Florida’s First Amendment Foundation, Florida Center for Government Accountability, The Tallahassee Democrat, or, generally, the League of Women Voters.

If you have a public records case, feel free to contact me:

Jessica J. Travis, Attorney, DefendBrevard.com, 1370 Bedford Drive, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida, 32937, 321-728-7280, contact@DefendBrevard.com,  www.DefendBrevard.com.

If you have a public records case, do not rely on this article for legal advice.  Consult with an attorney.  March 14, 2023.

The post Does The Public Have The Right To Know The Names Of Officers Involved in Police-Related Deaths? appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

Once you invoke your right to remain silent, the police must cease all questioning unless you start talking to them again.  “An accused, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subjected to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversation with the police.”  Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018).  If communication is started again, it is a requirement “that the accused be specifically given his or her Miranda rights after an alleged reinitiation.”  Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1, 13 (Fla. 2018), citing Welch v. State, 992 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2008).  “In other words, police must again re-read the Miranda rights before commencing further conversation.”  Quarles v. State, 290 So. 3d 505, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).  If these rules are violated, tell your attorney so she can then file a motion to suppress the evidence due to illegal police interrogation.  Your attorney will appreciate that you invoked your rights and kept your mouth shut.

False:  The police do not have to read you Miranda warnings (“You have the right to remain silent” etc.) unless you are:  1) Not free to leave, and 2) Being questioned about something that could potentially incriminate you. General questions regarding identity and vehicle ownership are not considered to be incriminating questions which is why officers are able to talk to motorists during traffic stops.  Some officers cross the line during traffic stops by asking questions beyond mere identification.  “Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?” is often followed by, “So you don’t mind if I search, do you?”  Don’t be tricked into consenting to a search of your vehicle.

True: Officers are allowed to ask you to exit a vehicle for the purpose of safety during a traffic stop.  However, this should not be used as an excuse to hold you longer than necessary to write the ticket.

Since 1999, I have filed motions to suppress for many clients. If you have been subject to illegal questioning, search, or seizure, feel free to contact me:

Jessica J. Travis, Attorney, DefendBrevard.com, 1370 Bedford Drive, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida, 32937, 321-728-7280, contact@DefendBrevard.com,  www.DefendBrevard.com.

If you are facing criminal charges or have been interviewed by the police, do not rely on this article for legal advice.  Consult with an attorney.  March 13, 2023.

The post What Happens After I Assert My Right To Remain Silent? appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

There is a disturbing trend to require a citizen who requests public records to prove: 1) that the record exists, and 2) that the record meets the definition of a “public record.”

A recent public records lawsuit was dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to prove the records existed or that the requested text messages were “public records.”  A lawsuit by The Florida Center for Government Accountability alleged that the Florida Department of Transportation and Vertol Systems Company, Inc. had incompletely responded to public records requests relating to Governor Desantis’s authorization and payment for the September flight of migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard.  While it was established that the public records request was served, the Leon County judge dismissed on the basis that, “there is no evidence that the public records exist,” and “the mere fact that a document … is part of Vertol’s files does not make it a ‘public record.’ ” 

The court cited the definition of “public record” set forth in Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1980):  “[A]ny material prepared in connection with official agency business which is intended to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.”  Shevin was cited in Braddy v. State, 219 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2017).   The judge then ruled that the request for “all text messages relating in any manner to the [transportation] contract” to be insufficient to establish that the text messages were a public record.

There is a rumor that there is a legislative effort to add the Leon County hurdles to Florida’s public records statutes.  Currently, there is nothing in Florida’s Public Records laws that require a requestor to prove that a record exists.  Practically speaking, if a requestor asks for a record that does not exist or does not meet the definition of a “public record,” the response is, “no responsive records.”  Placing the burden on the requestor risks undercutting the intention of the law – transparency in government.  Corrupt officials could simply reply that a record does not exist or that the record exists but does not pertain to public business without the fear of a lawsuit because the requestor is unable to prove otherwise.

Practice tip:  If possible, attorneys and citizens would be smart to include proof establishing that a public record exists and articulate how the record pertains to public business in their initial public records requests, 5-day letters, and lawsuits.  This independent proof might include a statutory obligation to maintain the records, meeting agendas, discussions and comments, and publicity and social media statements.

For more information on this and other First Amendment issues, follow Florida’s First Amendment Foundation, Florida Center for Government Accountability, The Tallahassee Democrat, or, generally, the League of Women Voters.  If you have a public records case, feel free to contact me.

Jessica J. Travis, Attorney, DefendBrevard.com, 1370 Bedford Drive, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida, 32937, 321-728-7280, contact@DefendBrevard.com,  www.DefendBrevard.com.

If you have a public records case, do not rely on this article for legal advice.  Consult with an attorney.  

The post Do I Need To Prove that a Record Exists and that it Pertains to Public Business When Making A Public Records Request? appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.

Defamation requires the following elements:

1) False, and

2) Defamatory Statement(s),

3) Published with  knowledge of,  or in reckless disregard as to, falsity, and

4) Damages.  Jews for Jesus, Inc., v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008).

Before filing a defamation case, ask yourself:

1)  What are my damages? You can recover for harm to reputation, but lost income and documented psychological (counseling) and related health issues make it more likely that a jury will award money.

2)  Do I have the money to sue?  Most attorneys will not take a defamation case on a contingency retainer (no up-front fee) because defamation cases require a lot of work and do not have a certain outcome.  Even if you represent yourself (not a good idea), determine whether you have the budget for case costs – filing fee, service, depositions, investigation, etc. – and the time away from employment.

3)  Is the lawsuit worth my time and energy? Your attorney will need you to be very involved in prosecuting your case.  You can expect the other side to ask you to answer interrogatories (questions), request records, and take your deposition.

4)  Do I have clean hands? If you have engaged in a back-and-forth with the defamer, a jury will be less likely to award damages.

5)  Is there another way to combat the defamation?  Sometimes, but rarely, replying to defamatory posts can clarify the issue.  Friends can stick up for you and sometimes humor can make the other person look ridiculous.  Keep in mind, a tit-for-tat social media argument often pulls both people down into the mud.

These considerations aside, it is sometimes necessary to take a stand.  Many people erroneously think that the right to free speech allows them to defame other people.  Too often in Brevard County, Florida, defamation is done for the sake of politics and remaining TikTok relevant.  (I wonder if Alex Jones still thinks it was worth it.)

If you have a strong defamation case, feel free to contact me:

Jessica J. Travis, Attorney, DefendBrevard.com, 1370 Bedford Drive, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida, 32937, 321-728-7280, contact@DefendBrevard.com,  www.DefendBrevard.com.

If you have a defamation case, do not rely on this article for legal advice.  Consult with an attorney.

February 24, 2023.

The post Can I Bring a Defamation Lawsuit For Facebook Posts? appeared first on DefendBrevard.com.