SB 694, titled the “Decker Act,” creates a new section of Florida law governing the review and reinvestigation of cold case murders. The bill defines a cold case as a murder with no likely perpetrator identified, at least five years old, and already fully investigated with probative leads exhausted. It allows an immediate family member of the victim, or that person’s Florida-Bar-member legal representative, to submit a written application requesting a review by the law enforcement agency that had jurisdiction at the time of the murder.
Once an application is received, the agency head or designee must review the case to determine whether a full reinvestigation could uncover new probative leads or identify a likely perpetrator. The review must examine possible missed investigative steps, witness interviews, forensic testing, and whether the case file should be updated using current investigative standards. If the review supports it, the agency must conduct a full reinvestigation, with limits on who may conduct it and how often the same case may be reopened. The bill also requires agencies to create application forms, adopt procedures by July 1, 2027, train personnel, and provide written confirmation and, if denied, a written explanation to the applicant.
The bill would also create a statewide reporting and transparency system. By October 1, 2026, and quarterly thereafter, law enforcement agencies must report cold case data to the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, which must maintain a case-tracking system and searchable public website. That website must include statistics on applications, reinvestigations, extensions, arrests, indictments, convictions, and a list of resources for victims’ families and designated applicants. Agencies may also request investigative assistance from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the bill applies only to murders committed on or after January 1, 1970.
The bill’s impact on state law is to impose a new procedural framework on local and state law enforcement agencies for handling cold case murder requests from victims’ families, while also creating new reporting duties and public-facing transparency requirements. It would affect agency workload, case-management practices, forensic review standards, and coordination among agencies when multiple departments were involved in the original investigation. The bill is subject to appropriations, so implementation depends on funding from the Legislature or other relevant political subdivisions.
The available legislative history shows no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, but the bill ultimately died in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to support victims’ families and improve accountability and transparency in unresolved homicide cases. Potential points of contention likely include the administrative and resource burden on law enforcement, the mandatory timelines for review, the public reporting requirements, and whether reopening old cases could divert personnel from current investigations.
SB 694 would create s. 782.41, F.S., establishing a formal process for family members or their legal representatives to request review and possible reinvestigation of qualifying cold case murders. It would require law enforcement agencies to adopt procedures, train personnel, respond within set timeframes, and document denials or extensions, while also allowing coordination with FDLE and requiring statewide data reporting to Florida International University. The bill would affect law enforcement agencies, victims’ families, and the state’s cold case recordkeeping and transparency practices, but its operation would depend on appropriated funding.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or member positions in the materials supplied. The bill’s structure suggests a generally victim-centered and reform-oriented approach, emphasizing family access, transparency, and renewed investigative attention to unsolved murders. Its final status—died in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee—indicates it did not advance, which may reflect concerns about implementation costs, workload, or policy priorities rather than opposition captured in the available record.
The main likely areas of contention are the burden on law enforcement agencies, the mandatory one-year review deadline, and the requirement to create public reporting systems and training programs. Agencies may view the bill as resource-intensive, especially where many old cases must be reviewed or where multiple agencies share jurisdiction. Another possible point of debate is the balance between giving families a formal avenue to request review and preserving agency discretion in deciding whether a case meets the statutory cold-case criteria or warrants a full reinvestigation.