SB 1106 creates a new public-records exemption for certain body camera recordings made by local code inspectors. The bill defines “body camera,” “code inspector,” and “personal representative,” and makes recordings confidential and exempt from Florida’s public records law and the state constitutional right of access when they are taken inside a private residence, inside a facility offering health care, mental health care, or social services, or in another place where a reasonable person would expect privacy.
The bill also sets out exceptions and disclosure rules. Local governments may disclose exempt recordings for official duties or to other governmental agencies, and must disclose relevant portions to the person recorded, that person’s personal representative, a person lawfully residing in the recorded location, or pursuant to a court order. Courts are directed to weigh privacy, sensitivity, safety, evidentiary need, and redaction options when deciding whether to order disclosure. Local governments must retain recordings for at least 90 days, and the exemption applies retroactively.
In addition to the exemption itself, the bill includes a statement of public necessity explaining that body camera footage can contain highly sensitive personal information and that exempting it from disclosure is intended to help code inspectors perform their duties more effectively. The exemption is also tied to Florida’s Open Government Sunset Review Act, meaning it will automatically repeal on October 2, 2030 unless reenacted.
The bill’s impact on state law is to narrow public access to a specific category of local-government body camera footage while preserving limited access for affected individuals, government use, and court-supervised disclosure. It would amend section 119.0713, Florida Statutes, and create new confidentiality protections for recordings made by code inspectors in privacy-sensitive settings.
Overall, the bill appears to be privacy-focused and protective of sensitive footage, with no recorded committee debate or votes available in the provided materials. Because the bill died in Rules, there is no evidence here of formal legislative support or opposition beyond the text itself. The main point of potential contention is the balance between transparency in government records and privacy for people recorded in homes, health-related facilities, and other private settings, especially given the retroactive application and the limits it places on public disclosure.
SB 1106 would amend Florida’s public records statutes to create a new confidentiality and exemption framework for body camera recordings made by code inspectors. It would affect local governments by requiring them to withhold certain recordings from public disclosure, retain them for at least 90 days, and follow specific disclosure procedures for recorded persons, personal representatives, residents of the recorded premises, and court-ordered requests. The bill also applies retroactively and is subject to sunset review, meaning the exemption would expire in 2030 unless reenacted.
The bill’s text and stated public necessity reflect a generally supportive, privacy-oriented posture toward the exemption, emphasizing sensitive personal information and the need to protect code inspectors’ work from impairment. However, the available context contains no committee transcripts or votes, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment. The fact that the bill died in Rules suggests it did not advance to final passage, but the record provided does not explain why.
The central tension in SB 1106 is between Florida’s strong public-records policy and the bill’s new privacy exemption for code-inspector body camera footage. Supporters of the exemption would likely emphasize privacy, safety, and the presence of highly sensitive information in homes and care facilities, while opponents or transparency advocates could object that the bill reduces public access to government-recorded footage and may limit oversight of code enforcement. The most notable legal friction points are the retroactive application, the broad privacy-based exemption for places where a reasonable person would expect privacy, and the court-order standard that requires balancing multiple factors before disclosure.