Florida

Delinquency and dependency proceedings: Juvenile court proceedings are presumptively open to the public in Florida, and no one may be excluded without an order from the court. But the court, in its discretion, may close any hearing when the public interest and welfare of the child are best served by doing so. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 39.507, 985.035 (West 2012).

Delinquency records: Conversely, juvenile delinquency records are closed to inspection except in limited circumstances in which the court finds that the person requesting access has a proper interest in the records and orders their release to the individual. There is a limited right of access for the compilation of statistical information for authorized representatives of recognized organizations such as the media. Id. § 985.045. Typically, orders allowing access for such research purposes will require identifying information to be redacted.

A law enforcement agency may release for publication the name, photograph, address and crime or arrest report of a child taken into custody for violation of a law that would be a felony if committed by an adult. The law enforcement agency also may reveal the identity of a child found by a court to have committed three or more violations of law that would be misdemeanors if committed by an adult. The statute provides that law enforcement agencies may not use age as the sole reason for denying access to the record of a juvenile felony or three-time misdemeanor offender. Thus, law enforcement agencies should release such juvenile offender records unless some other justifiable reason exists for keeping the record confidential. The law enforcement agency is not limited to disclosure of the name, photograph and address of the juvenile but also may release other background information regarding the offense or arrest. Id. § 985.04. And law enforcement records that have been transmitted to a criminal justice agency such as the state Department of Juvenile Justice also may be released. Fla. Op. Att’y Gen. 1994-91 (1994). The only information that remains non-public are law enforcement records of juveniles arrested for a felony prior to Oct. 1, 1994. Fla. Op. Att’y Gen. 1995-19 (1995). But if the juvenile has allegedly committed some other delinquent act that would be a crime but not a felony if committed by an adult, the record is confidential and will be released only by court order to certain individuals and agencies designated by statute. There also is a limited right of access in this provision for the compilation of statistical information for research purposes. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 985.04.

Dependency records: In Florida, juvenile dependency records are closed except to those showing a proper interest, which the public may do on certain occasions. Id. §§ 39.0132, 39.814. Requests for access to such closed files often overlap with requests for access to the confidential files of the state Department of Children and Families that may not have been filed with the court. The test for showing a proper interest is therefore similar to the good cause standard for access to the agency’s records. Id. § 39.2021. For example, the state intermediate appellate court upheld a trial judge’s decision to disclose the full court record of a dependency proceeding despite the confidentiality provisions, noting that “the circuit court was acting within its discretionary powers when it determined that disclosure of the full record would best correct any speculation, rumor, or innuendo circulating about the instant family and that disclosure was in the best interest of the dependent children.” Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. A.N., 604 So. 2d 11, 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). The media also may be permitted access to dependency records for the compilation of statistics or other quantitative data. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 39.0132, 39.814. In such situations, the court may impose conditions on the use of the information and hold in contempt of court those who violate the conditions. Fla. Op. Att’y Gen. 1991-32 (1991). Identifying information is often redacted from these records.

Restrictions on coverage: Florida law allows a trial judge to close the courtroom when a victim or witness 15 years old or younger or one with mental retardation regardless of age is testifying about a sexual offense. Newspaper and broadcast reporters are included among those permitted to remain in the courtroom during this testimony, but another law prohibits the disclosure of information that would reveal the identity of a victim of child abuse. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 119.071, 918.16. There is dispute, however, among the appellate courts in Florida over how this closure statute interacts with the First and Sixth Amendment rights of public access and a public trial, respectively. Two of the five district courts have held that before the judge orders even partial closure of the courtroom, four prerequisites must be met: 1) the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; 2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; 3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding; and 4) the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Alonso v. State, 821 So. 2d 423, 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002); Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990). The other three districts do not require fulfillment of this standard for partial closures, only for full closures. Kovaleski v. State, 1 So. 3d 254, 258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009); Hobbs v. State, 820 So. 2d 347, 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002); Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338, 341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999). The law also allows a victim or witness 15 years old or younger or one with mental retardation regardless of age to testify in any civil or criminal case outside the presence of the defendant via video-recorded testimony or closed-circuit television. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 92.53, 92.54. The law does not specify whether the media and public may remain in the courtroom during this testimony, although an opinion by the state appellate court indicates that not only can they be present when this testimony is given in open court, they also may be able to attend the video-recording sessions. In that case, the trial judge granted members of the news media access to the session in which the trial testimony of an alleged minor victim of sexual battery was video-recorded but barred them from disclosing the contents of the testimony prior to its use at trial scheduled more than two months away. The appellate court found the trial court’s belief in a qualitative difference between actual trial testimony and other pretrial and discovery proceedings insufficient justification for the prior restraint on publication. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Morphonios, 467 So. 2d 1026, 1028, 1030 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).