Pub. Rec./ Sexual Assault Counselors :
HB 507 creates a new public-records exemption in Florida law for the personal identifying and location information of sexual assault counselors. The bill amends section 119.071, Florida Statutes, to make exempt from public disclosure the home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and photographs of sexual assault counselors, as defined in section 90.5035, and it applies the exemption retroactively to records already held by agencies. The bill also includes a public necessity statement explaining that counselors’ information is often exposed through police reports and discovery materials, which can make them targets of harassment, threats, stalking, or retaliation.
The measure is also a broad update to Florida’s existing public-records protections for a long list of public employees and related personnel whose work can expose them to safety risks. It adds sexual assault counselors to a statute that already shields similar information for law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, firefighters, child welfare staff, certain inspectors, and other sensitive positions. The bill includes standard implementation provisions for custodial agencies and preserves existing rules allowing limited disclosure to certain title and legal professionals, while maintaining the exemption in official records under specified conditions.
HB 507’s main legal effect is to expand the list of statutorily protected categories under Florida’s public-records law, limiting access to certain personal data for sexual assault counselors and related location information. It would require agencies to withhold those records from inspection and copying under chapter 119, and it would apply to records before, on, or after the effective date. The bill also establishes future sunset review for the new exemption, meaning the Legislature would need to revisit and reenact it for the protection to continue beyond the sunset date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of privacy and safety protections for sexual assault counselors. The public necessity statement frames the exemption as a response to real risks of harassment and harm, and there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials showing opposition or debate. However, the bill’s status indicates it died in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, suggesting it did not advance despite the policy rationale.
The main point of contention, based on the structure of the bill and the broader public-records context, is the usual tension between transparency and privacy. Supporters would emphasize counselor safety and the sensitivity of victim-related work, while critics of exemptions in general may worry about narrowing public access to government-held records. No specific opposing arguments are included in the provided materials, but the bill’s failure to advance suggests it may not have received sufficient committee support or priority.
HB 507 would amend Florida’s public-records exemption statute, section 119.071, to add sexual assault counselors to the list of protected personnel whose home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and photographs are exempt from disclosure. It also protects related information about their spouses and children, and it applies the exemption retroactively to records already held by agencies. The bill would require custodial agencies to maintain the exemption under specified procedures and would allow limited disclosure in certain circumstances already recognized in law. Because it is a public-records exemption, it directly affects chapter 119 and the handling of official records by state and local agencies.
The bill appears to have been viewed positively as a safety and privacy measure for professionals who work closely with victims of sexual assault. Its public necessity statement is explicit that disclosure can expose counselors to harassment, threats, stalking, or retaliation, and the bill text presents the exemption as a narrowly tailored response to those risks. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the materials; nonetheless, the bill ultimately died in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, indicating it did not secure enough legislative momentum to advance.
The central policy tension is between public-records transparency and personal safety/privacy. Supporters of HB 507 would likely argue that sexual assault counselors face unique risks because their identities and locations can be revealed through law-enforcement and discovery records, while opponents of public-records exemptions generally may argue that adding categories to chapter 119 reduces government transparency and should be narrowly limited. The provided materials do not identify any named opponents or specific objections, but the bill’s failure to move out of subcommittee suggests that either the exemption’s scope, its placement in an already expansive exemption statute, or broader concerns about public-records carveouts may have limited support.