Gainesville police released six internal affairs reports this year, but withheld the names of officers despite sustained findings of misconduct.
The reports, released between April and June, include incidents where a juvenile suspect was found carrying a loaded gun after being left unsearched in a patrol car, a police employee booked a landmine into evidence without notifying superiors and a school officer disclosed child sex crime allegations to the suspect’s father before detectives could intervene.
Each case is officially closed. But the names are gone.
At issue are a series of Florida statutes that govern access to law enforcement disciplinary records, most notably Florida Statutes 112.533 and 119.071.
Under Florida Statute 112.533(2)(a), complaints and investigative materials related to law enforcement misconduct are confidential while the investigation is active.
Florida Statute 112.533(2)(a) states, “A complaint filed against a law enforcement officer… and all information obtained pursuant to the investigation… shall be confidential and exempt… until the investigation ceases to be active.”
Once an investigation is closed, those records are typically made public. However, other statutes continue to permit the redaction of sensitive information.
Florida Statute 119.07(1)(d) requires custodians of public records to redact any portion of a record that is exempt and to release the rest.
Florida Statute 119.07(1)(d) states, "A person who has custody of a public record who asserts that an exemption applies… shall redact that portion… and shall produce the remainder of such record for inspection and copying.”
Florida Statute 119.071(4)(d) specifically protects identifying information for certain public employees, including law enforcement officers, stating that such information is exempt if their duties place them at risk of harm.
Florida Statute 119.071(4)(d) states, “the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former sworn law enforcement personnel… are exempt from public disclosure.”
These exemptions are generally intended to protect officer safety, preserve the privacy of juveniles involved in investigations, and in some cases, allow time for certification reviews by state bodies like the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission.
But at a May 28 meeting of the Police Advisory Council, members weren’t satisfied.
Josh Pittman, a council member, questioned during the meeting how “so many officer safety issues” could be allowed without stronger consequences.
The answer, according to GPD Internal Affairs Sgt. Leah Hayes, is complicated.
Hayes explained that once an officer is dismissed, the case may go before the Criminal Justice Review Committee, a state body that can revoke an officer’s law enforcement certification after a formal hearing.
During the same meeting, Hayes showed council members a copy of the department’s discipline matrix, outlining penalties for various rule violations. In at least three of the redacted cases, the violations included “wanton neglect,” failure to follow safety protocols and misuse of official systems.
One case involved a school resource officer who failed to activate a body-worn camera while a school dean questioned a student accused of sending sexually explicit material to minors. The student’s father, himself a GPD officer, was informed of the allegations before detectives could intervene. The evidence was later lost, and no charges were filed.
Another case detailed how a patrol officer placed a juvenile burglary suspect in the back of her vehicle without handcuffing or searching him. When another officer arrived, the juvenile attempted to flee and was found with a loaded handgun in his pocket.
“That could’ve been bad,” the officer said on body camera footage.
In both cases, officers admitted during interviews that they failed to follow protocol. But their names were scrubbed from the public reports.
“[Are there] any mechanisms in place while the committee reviews cases to keep [officers] from applying to other agencies?” asked Norb Dunkel, a council member.
Police officials emphasized that even if names are hidden from the public, internal tracking systems like the state’s Automated Training Management System (ATMS) log every disciplinary history. Departments conducting background checks still have access to the full record.
Hayes, speaking during the May meeting, explained, “We receive requests from other agencies… [cases are entered into] the ATMS system, all agencies will do a background screening.”
The Gainesville Police Department has pointed to these internal review systems and background screening protocols in place under state law, suggesting those systems help justify the redaction of officer names from public documents, even after cases are closed.
Council members say they plan to revisit the redaction issue at a meeting in August with command staff from the University of Florida Police Department, though one is not currently scheduled.