HB 231 amends Florida’s public records law to create a new exemption for the personal identifying and location information of current and former medical examiners, as well as the spouses and children of those medical examiners. The bill defines “medical examiner” to include district, associate, and substitute medical examiners acting under chapter 406, along with their employees, deputies, and agents. The exempt information includes home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, photographs, and, for family members, names, places of employment, and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by children.
The bill also states that the exemption applies retroactively to records held before, on, or after the effective date, and it includes a public necessity statement explaining that disclosure could create security risks, invite unwarranted intrusion, and interfere with the operation of medical examiner offices. The act takes effect upon becoming law. In addition to the new exemption, the bill fits within Florida’s broader framework of protecting the personal information of certain public employees and officials whose duties may expose them or their families to risk.
Impact
HB 231 would amend section 119.071, Florida Statutes, by adding medical examiners to the list of protected categories whose personal identifying and location information is exempt from public disclosure under Florida’s Public Records Act and the corresponding constitutional access provision. It would shield not only the medical examiners themselves but also certain information about their spouses and children, and it would apply to records already in agency custody. The bill therefore narrows public access to specified personal data while leaving the rest of the public records framework intact.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee: it passed the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on March 12, 2025, by a unanimous 15-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or concern in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to have had broad support at the subcommittee stage.
Contention
The main policy issue is the usual tension in public-records legislation between transparency and personal safety/privacy. Support for the bill is reflected in the public necessity statement, which argues that medical examiners and their families face security risks and privacy intrusions if their home and location information is publicly available. Potential points of contention, though not documented in the provided materials, would likely center on whether the exemption is too broad, whether it should extend to family members and children’s school/day care information, and whether retroactive application unduly limits access to existing records.