PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and RIC L. BRADSHAW v. SUN-SENTINEL COMPANY, LLC, 226 So. 3d 969

Background

In Feb. 2017 a shooter killed Antoine Smith on I-95; a separate vehicle with two occupants pursued the shooter and were shot at but not injured.
Sun-Sentinel requested the identities of the two occupants (the chase participants) under Florida’s Public Records Act.
PBSO refused, treating the individuals as witnesses whose identifying information was exempt as active criminal investigative information; PBSO also noted an ongoing homicide investigation and safety concerns.
The trial court ordered disclosure, reasoning the chase participants were victims of a crime (shot at) and victim identity is excluded from the statutory definition of criminal investigative information.
While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Fla. Stat. ch. 119 to make identifying information of a witness to a murder confidential and exempt for 2 years.
The Fourth DCA reversed the trial court, holding the new statutory “murder‑witness” exemption applies retroactively and precludes disclosure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sun‑Sentinel)	Defendant's Argument (PBSO)	Held
Whether the chase participants’ names are exempt as active criminal investigative/intelligence information	The statute unambiguously excludes victim identity from the definition of criminal investigative information; the chase participants were victims (shot at) so their names must be disclosed	The participants are primarily witnesses to the homicide; the primary victim is Smith, so these individuals are investigatory witnesses and exempt	Court: The trial court correctly applied the pre‑amendment statute and concluded the individuals’ identities were not exempt as criminal investigative information because they were victims
Whether the post‑request legislative amendment (confidentiality for murder witnesses for 2 years) bars disclosure	Disclosure should follow statute as written when request was made; exceptions are narrow and victim identity exclusion controls	The new amendment protects identities of witnesses to a murder and shelters these names from disclosure	Court: The 2017 amendment creating a 2‑year confidential exemption for murder witnesses applies retroactively and therefore precludes disclosure; trial court judgment reversed
Whether the court may judicially create an exemption for witness safety beyond statute	Exceptions must be statutory; courts may not create exemptions	N/A (PBSO sought to rely on existing investigatory exemption rather than judicial creation)	Court: Judicially creating exemptions is improper; legislature made the policy change and its amendment controls
Whether victim/witness overlap creates irreconcilable statutory conflict	Sun‑Sentinel: victim‑identity exclusion requires disclosure even if person is also a witness	PBSO: allowing disclosure would undermine investigative confidentiality and safety	Court: Statutes harmonize—specific new confidentiality for murder witnesses controls over broader provisions; both provisions can coexist

Key Cases Cited

Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 840 So. 2d 1008 (discussing de novo review of public‑records rulings)
Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Santa Fe Coll., 109 So. 3d 851 (de novo review where legal public‑record issues involved)
City of Riviera Beach v. Barfield, 642 So. 2d 1135 (public‑records Act must be liberally construed in favor of access)
Bludworth v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 476 So. 2d 775 (courts may not create exemptions; statutory exceptions control)
Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (only statutory exemptions permitted from Public Records Act)
Tribune Co. v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d 1075 (court may not write into statute unexpressed exemptions)
Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (plain statutory language controls where unambiguous)
Barfield v. City of Ft. Lauderdale Police Dep’t, 639 So. 2d 1012 (protecting confidentiality of ongoing investigations)
Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Dempsey, 478 So. 2d 1128 (disclosure during ongoing investigations can impede law enforcement)
WFTV, Inc. v. School Bd. of Seminole, 874 So. 2d 48 (distinction between exempt and confidential public records)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (specific statute controls over general statute)
Roberts v. Butterworth, 668 So. 2d 580 (remedial public‑records exemptions may apply retroactively)
City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So. 2d 1027 (retroactive application of remedial public‑records exemption)
News‑Press Publ’g Co. v. Kaune, 511 So. 2d 1023 (recognizing retroactive application of remedial exemptions)