What Are the Sunshine State Laws and Should they be Amended?

[lillygator]

no - not at all. If you don't do anything questionable you have nothing to worry about.

 

[mommyto4]

no - not at all. If you don't do anything questionable you have nothing to worry about.

I have to respectfully disagree with this. Its not only about whether you have done something questionable. Its also about privacy.

Can anyone here honesty tell me that you would be ok with your drivers license number, social security number, home address, home phone number, cell phone number, birthdate, place of birth, etc. posted here on the internet? printed in newspapers? showing up on Headline News every night? zealots using that information to find and contact your friends and family members and former employers questioning your character? using that information to look up your entire life history? I for one have a big problem knowing that information is that easily available for the world to see.

 

[yolorado]

To release people's private correspondence, their social security numbers, cell phone numbers, and much more, when all of that may or may not come into play in actual court proceedings later on is way too much. Much of what has been released is only incidentally related to the matter at hand. Florida's open records laws are far too liberal. I think seeing the level of exposure here could dampen citizens' enthusiam to come forward to the police.

 

[tiredofthis]

Yes. The amount of personal information the public is allowed access to is unreal.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I think I'm in the minority here but yes. Parts of the law need to be amended. There is no reason that documents that are part of an active police investigation should be released to the public. The police have a job to do and they should be able to do that job without risking having their investigation compromised by having to put everything out to the public. If we can read those documents so can the defense. Once the documents become a part of discovery then fine release them, but prior to that no.

I am personally also very disturbed by the frenzy the release of these documents causes. Innocent people who were mentioned by KC had their personal lives drug through the mud. A name is mentioned in the police documents and the next thing you know the person is on the front of The Globe or Enquirer with their whole lives spread out before the world, their MySpace and Facebook pages are all over the internet with people analyzing every comment. The police barely had time to talk to some of these people and they were being harassed with questions about KC this and KC that. I thank my lucky stars every single day that I am not one of those people.

:clap::clap::clap: I am just as "guilty" of everyone else when it comes to reading and reviewing all of the docs when they are dumped. Yes it gives an inside look at an ongoing investigation that is not the norm. But in reality, why are we entitled to that? IMOO, we aren't. I do believe it hurts, rather than helps an investigation. I believe the laws should be amended so that docs and information can be available to the public AFTER and investigation is either closed, or the trial takes place.

 

[mommyto4]

:clap::clap::clap: I am just as "guilty" of everyone else when it comes to reading and reviewing all of the docs when they are dumped. Yes it gives an inside look at an ongoing investigation that is not the norm. But in reality, why are we entitled to that? IMOO, we aren't. I do believe it hurts, rather than helps an investigation. I believe the laws should be amended so that docs and information can be available to the public AFTER and investigation is either closed, or the trial takes place.

Something that might be a little off topic but kind of funny. I'm in NJ and my husband had a minor accident with my van. He went to get the police report and they blacked out HIS OWN license number and address on the report before they gave him a copy.

Its really amazing how different the laws are from state to state.

 

[Blackwatch]

After this case has become a nationwide if not worldwide obsession, do you believe that the state of Florida should consider ammending their very liberal Sunshine State Laws??

NO. I believe scrutiny is good for the soul. Back in the day people were far more conscious of what they did because of the neighbors and it made for much nicer, safer neighborhoods and lives. One way or another sins and dirty deeds have a way of coming to the fore for all of us.

 

[impatientredhead]

I have to respectfully disagree with this. Its not only about whether you have done something questionable. Its also about privacy.

Can anyone here honesty tell me that you would be ok with your drivers license number, social security number, home address, home phone number, cell phone number, birthdate, place of birth, etc. posted here on the internet? printed in newspapers? showing up on Headline News every night? zealots using that information to find and contact your friends and family members and former employers questioning your character? using that information to look up your entire life history? I for one have a big problem knowing that information is that easily available for the world to see.

I do think the innocent bystanders that are only involved by the unfortunate nature of knowing Casey have paid a high price. All of the information you listed has been released. They have been thrust into the public for scrutiny. And this will follow them forever. Think about Tony or Annie ten years from now applying for a job and their employer doing an internet search on them, which is very common procedure now. All their myspace postings, text messages, and every theory floated about them will follow them forever. Some employers, especially depending on the sensitivity of the job, don't care if you were a bystander that got pulled in, it is not worth the risk or possible public embarassment to the company.

 

[Marple]

NO. I believe scrutiny is good for the soul. Back in the day people were far more conscious of what they did because of the neighbors and it made for much nicer, safer neighborhoods and lives. One way or another sins and dirty deeds have a way of coming to the fore for all of us.

By your reasoning, FL's crime rate should be way down since everything is a matter of public record.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Here is some food for thought.....or for discussion........

Given the release of these documents, the frenzy surrounding them, and the obsession with them (I am totally guilty of that) consider for a moment the irony of this.......Documents with ss #'s, DL #'s, text messages, phone records, etc....have been made public because we / media asked for it regardless of their actual relevence to the case......yet key interviews with witnesses, other phone records, e-mails, photos, text messages, etc......that are totally relevent are held back????? Does anyone else see the contradiction???

 

[sharpar]

No ....... I hope other states adopt similiar ones -

 

[Broderick]

Not one single bit!

I add, 'absolutely' not.

 

[affinity]

Yes! it causes more harm than good.

Here in Oregon there is a case of a man who killed a young woman in 2005 and there is no body. He is incarcerated and the trial is not scheduled to start until 2010!..I have no idea what they have on him that the State KNOWS he killed her. Since there is no body, it just has to be something overwhelming like photos he took or some major physical thing like a gallon of blood in his van. What is it that makes their case?! I am not going to find out until 2010 and that seems correct to me. This other way, of making everything public serves only to endanger Florida's case against Casey Anthony.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Note to self: Next Doc Dump, don't let SS see! :floorlaugh:

Now...now...let's not get crazy!! LOL :crazy: I didn't say I wouldn't read the stuff!!

 

[Elley Mae]

I personally like it, as MS would say "It's a good thing."

 

[terminatrixator]

no, I think truth is more important than privacy. People will just use their imaginations, which is usually much more dangerous than the facts, when it comes to judging others, IMO, thanks for asking!!!!

We are not the judges of this case though. There is too much information out there regarding this case, that does NOTHING towards solving the case. The information is for LE and a prosecutor to try the case, not for the PUBLIC to Judge.

I have to tell you, I spend 99.9% of my time in the Janet Marie Christiansen Abaroa forum and I am extremely vocal against the person I believe 100% is responsible for Janet and her unborn child's murder, this case isn't solved yet, but I am so grateful that the laws in NC are not like Florida.

I want the person arrested, but he does have innocent family & friends that do not deserve their lives torn to shred because of his actions. The victims' family having every single aspect of their lives out there for "the public to judge", disgusts me!

Cindy, George & Lee are still Victims, they lost their grandchild and neice. The neighbors of Cindy & George also do not deserves their lives disrupted at any waking moment because of the publics need to be involved and judge.

I have worked for Prosecutors and Defense attorneys and there is no need for this much public information out there and I am just disgusted by it.

IMO this law needs to be updated and amended.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

This is being brought over from another thread as I feel it's relevent to another amendment to Florida's Sunshine Law. Please read in it's entirety as I'm only referring to Patient HIPA / Privacy Laws vs Bakers Act & Sunshine Law. While I absolutely agree with having certain criminal charges & records made public, we also need to take into consideration Hepa Laws. If GA has something to do with Caylee's demise, then of course this should be made public after it's proven. If GA has nothing to do with Caylee's demise, then the release of such private records could violate his civil rights. Thanks for reading!

I found something interesting regarding Florida's Baker Act and Patient Privacy Laws. Please refer to link: http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResources/StateLaws/Floridastatute.htm

"394.455 Definitions.--(As used in this part, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the term)
(3) "Clinical record" means all parts of the record required to be maintained and includes all medical records, progress notes, charts, and admission and discharge data, and all other information recorded by a facility which pertains to the patient's hospitalization and treatment."

&

394.4615 Clinical records; confidentiality.--
(1) A clinical record shall be maintained for each patient. The record shall include data pertaining to admission and such other information as may be required under rules of the department. A clinical record is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1). Unless waived by express and informed consent, by the patient or the patient's guardian or guardian advocate or, if the patient is deceased, by the patient's personal representative or the family member who stands next in line of intestate succession, the confidential status of the clinical record shall not be lost by either authorized or unauthorized disclosure to any person, organization, or agency.
(2) The clinical record shall be released when:
(a) The patient or the patient's guardian authorizes the release. The guardian or guardian advocate shall be provided access to the appropriate clinical records of the patient. The patient or the patient's guardian or guardian advocate may authorize the release of information and clinical records to appropriate persons to ensure the continuity of the patient's health care or mental health care.
(b) The patient is represented by counsel and the records are needed by the patient's counsel for adequate representation.
(c) The court orders such release. In determining whether there is good cause for disclosure, the court shall weigh the need for the information to be disclosed against the possible harm of disclosure to the person to whom such information pertains.
(d) The patient is committed to, or is to be returned to, the Department of Corrections from the Department of Children and Family Services, and the Department of Corrections requests such records. These records shall be furnished without charge to the Department of Corrections.
(3) Information from the clinical record may be released when:
(a) A patient has declared an intention to harm other persons. When such declaration has been made, the administrator may authorize the release of sufficient information to provide adequate warning to the person threatened with harm by the patient.
(b) The administrator of the facility or secretary of the department deems release to a qualified researcher as defined in administrative rule, an aftercare treatment provider, or an employee or agent of the department is necessary for treatment of the patient, maintenance of adequate records, compilation of treatment data, aftercare planning, or evaluation of programs.
(4) Information from clinical records may be used for statistical and research purposes if the information is abstracted in such a way as to protect the identity of individuals.
(5) Information from clinical records may be used by the Agency for Health Care Administration, the department, and the Florida advocacy councils for the purpose of monitoring facility activity and complaints concerning facilities.
(6) Clinical records relating to a Medicaid recipient shall be furnished to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Department of Legal Affairs, upon request.
(7) Any person, agency, or entity receiving information pursuant to this section shall maintain such information as confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1).
(8) Any facility or private mental health practitioner who acts in good faith in releasing information pursuant to this section is not subject to civil or criminal liability for such release.
(9) Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the parent or next of kin of a person who is held in or treated under a mental health facility or program from requesting and receiving information limited to a summary of that person's treatment plan and current physical and mental condition. Release of such information shall be in accordance with the code of ethics of the profession involved.
(10) Patients shall have reasonable access to their clinical records, unless such access is determined by the patient's physician to be harmful to the patient. If the patient's right to inspect his or her clinical record is restricted by the facility, written notice of such restriction shall be given to the patient and the patient's guardian, guardian advocate, attorney, and representative. In addition, the restriction shall be recorded in the clinical record, together with the reasons for it. The restriction of a patient's right to inspect his or her clinical record shall expire after 7 days but may be renewed, after review, for subsequent 7-day periods.
(11) Any person who fraudulently alters, defaces, or falsifies the clinical record of any person receiving mental health services in a facility subject to this part, or causes or procures any of these offenses to be committed, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Having found this information, it is my understanding that George may have a viable lawsuit if his "suicidal" letter and texts are released to the public. I think that since those same texts and the letter were used to admit him to be evaluated, then he is covered under the Patient Privacy Law. Something to think about...If they didn't release what types of meds he was taking, then why would they be able to release the note & texts that were used to get him in the hospital? Wouldn't that then become part of his patient file? Jeb Bush already amended the Sunshine Law once. Is it time for a reevaluation? While I do agree with public records being available to solve crimes (etc), where and when do we draw the line?

 

[terminatrixator]

This is being brought over from another thread as I feel it's relevent to another amendment to Florida's Sunshine Law. Please read in it's entirety as I'm only referring to Patient Hepa / Privacy Laws vs Bakers Act & Sunshine Law. While I absolutely agree with having certain criminal charges & records made public, we also need to take into consideration Hepa Laws. If GA has something to do with Caylee's demise, then of course this should be made public after it's proven. If GA has nothing to do with Caylee's demise, then the release of such private records could violate his civil rights. Thanks for reading!

I found something interesting regarding Florida's Baker Act and Patient Privacy Laws. Please refer to link: http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResources/StateLaws/Floridastatute.htm

"394.455 Definitions.--(As used in this part, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the term)
(3) "Clinical record" means all parts of the record required to be maintained and includes all medical records, progress notes, charts, and admission and discharge data, and all other information recorded by a facility which pertains to the patient's hospitalization and treatment."

&

394.4615 Clinical records; confidentiality.--
(1) A clinical record shall be maintained for each patient. The record shall include data pertaining to admission and such other information as may be required under rules of the department. A clinical record is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1). Unless waived by express and informed consent, by the patient or the patient's guardian or guardian advocate or, if the patient is deceased, by the patient's personal representative or the family member who stands next in line of intestate succession, the confidential status of the clinical record shall not be lost by either authorized or unauthorized disclosure to any person, organization, or agency.
(2) The clinical record shall be released when:
(a) The patient or the patient's guardian authorizes the release. The guardian or guardian advocate shall be provided access to the appropriate clinical records of the patient. The patient or the patient's guardian or guardian advocate may authorize the release of information and clinical records to appropriate persons to ensure the continuity of the patient's health care or mental health care.
(b) The patient is represented by counsel and the records are needed by the patient's counsel for adequate representation.
(c) The court orders such release. In determining whether there is good cause for disclosure, the court shall weigh the need for the information to be disclosed against the possible harm of disclosure to the person to whom such information pertains.
(d) The patient is committed to, or is to be returned to, the Department of Corrections from the Department of Children and Family Services, and the Department of Corrections requests such records. These records shall be furnished without charge to the Department of Corrections.
(3) Information from the clinical record may be released when:
(a) A patient has declared an intention to harm other persons. When such declaration has been made, the administrator may authorize the release of sufficient information to provide adequate warning to the person threatened with harm by the patient.
(b) The administrator of the facility or secretary of the department deems release to a qualified researcher as defined in administrative rule, an aftercare treatment provider, or an employee or agent of the department is necessary for treatment of the patient, maintenance of adequate records, compilation of treatment data, aftercare planning, or evaluation of programs.
(4) Information from clinical records may be used for statistical and research purposes if the information is abstracted in such a way as to protect the identity of individuals.
(5) Information from clinical records may be used by the Agency for Health Care Administration, the department, and the Florida advocacy councils for the purpose of monitoring facility activity and complaints concerning facilities.
(6) Clinical records relating to a Medicaid recipient shall be furnished to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Department of Legal Affairs, upon request.
(7) Any person, agency, or entity receiving information pursuant to this section shall maintain such information as confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1).
(8) Any facility or private mental health practitioner who acts in good faith in releasing information pursuant to this section is not subject to civil or criminal liability for such release.
(9) Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the parent or next of kin of a person who is held in or treated under a mental health facility or program from requesting and receiving information limited to a summary of that person's treatment plan and current physical and mental condition. Release of such information shall be in accordance with the code of ethics of the profession involved.
(10) Patients shall have reasonable access to their clinical records, unless such access is determined by the patient's physician to be harmful to the patient. If the patient's right to inspect his or her clinical record is restricted by the facility, written notice of such restriction shall be given to the patient and the patient's guardian, guardian advocate, attorney, and representative. In addition, the restriction shall be recorded in the clinical record, together with the reasons for it. The restriction of a patient's right to inspect his or her clinical record shall expire after 7 days but may be renewed, after review, for subsequent 7-day periods.
(11) Any person who fraudulently alters, defaces, or falsifies the clinical record of any person receiving mental health services in a facility subject to this part, or causes or procures any of these offenses to be committed, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Having found this information, it is my understanding that George may have a viable lawsuit if his "suicidal" letter and texts are released to the public. I think that since those same texts and the letter were used to admit him to be evaluated, then he is covered under the Patient Privacy Law. Something to think about...If they didn't release what types of meds he was taking, then why would they be able to release the note & texts that were used to get him in the hospital? Wouldn't that then become part of his patient file? Jeb Bush already amended the Sunshine Law once. Is it time for a reevaluation? While I do agree with public records being available to solve crimes (etc), where and when do we draw the line?

Jersey, have I told you lately, that I love you!

Thank you so much for gathering this information.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Jersey, have I told you lately, that I love you!

Thank you so much for gathering this information.

Wow! Thanks so much and you're very welcome!
:blowkiss:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Originally posted by Jersey Girl: Having found this information, it is my understanding that George may have a viable lawsuit if his "suicidal" letter and texts are released to the public. I think that since those same texts and the letter were used to admit him to be evaluated, then he is covered under the Patient Privacy Law. Something to think about...If they didn't release what types of meds he was taking, then why would they be able to release the note & texts that were used to get him in the hospital? Wouldn't that then become part of his patient file? Jeb Bush already amended the Sunshine Law once. Is it time for a reevaluation? While I do agree with public records being available to solve crimes (etc), where and when do we draw the line?

Thanks for the information!

There must be a loophole about the suicide letter etc. Maybe it is no different than if they found he had written it on his computer or sent it out in the mail to people. It wasn't found in the room and in his possession, but in his car. They had probable cause to enter his vehicle and it would then become evidence instead of part of his medical file pertaining to the suicide, imo. (I could be wrong about this tho.)