House Bill 397 creates a new public-records exemption for specified personal identifying and location information of current and former employees, board members, and volunteers of crime stoppers organizations. The protected information includes home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, photographs, and, for spouses and children, names, home addresses, contact information, dates of birth, places of employment, and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by children. The bill also states a public necessity for the exemption, explaining that crime stoppers personnel and their families may face retaliation because of their role in collecting tips, forwarding information to law enforcement, and paying rewards to anonymous tipsters.
The bill amends section 119.071, Florida Statutes, which governs general exemptions from inspection or copying of public records. It adds crime stoppers organizations to the long list of covered public employees and related personnel whose sensitive personal information is exempt from disclosure under Florida’s public records law and the state constitutional right of access. The bill applies retroactively to information held before, on, or after the effective date, and it takes effect July 1, 2025. The exemption is also subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act and is scheduled to repeal on October 2, 2030 unless reenacted.
Beyond the new crime stoppers exemption, the bill largely preserves the existing framework in section 119.071 for other protected categories of public personnel. The text restates procedures for maintaining exempt status, including notarized requests to custodial agencies, rules for property appraisers and tax collectors handling official records, and limited disclosure pathways to title insurers, title agents, and attorneys. These provisions mean the bill fits into Florida’s broader system of targeted public-records exemptions rather than creating a standalone privacy regime.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is strongly supportive. The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee approved the bill unanimously, 16-0, and there are no recorded committee transcripts showing opposition or extended debate. The bill’s findings emphasize safety concerns and the risk of retaliation against crime stoppers workers and their families, which likely contributed to the favorable vote.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the usual tension between public-records transparency and personal privacy/safety. The bill narrows public access to information that would otherwise be available under Florida’s broad open-records laws, but it does so for a specific group tied to criminal investigations and anonymous tip programs. No specific opposition is reflected in the provided materials, and the exemption is framed as a safety measure rather than a broad expansion of secrecy.
The bill amends Florida’s public-records statute, section 119.071, to add crime stoppers organization employees, board members, volunteers, and certain family-member information to the list of exempt records. It limits disclosure of home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, photographs, employment information, and children’s school/day care locations, and it applies the exemption retroactively to records already held by agencies. The bill also sets a future repeal date under the Open Government Sunset Review Act, requiring legislative review to continue the exemption beyond October 2, 2030.
The available legislative history shows clear support for the bill. It passed the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee unanimously, 16-0, and there are no recorded committee transcripts indicating significant disagreement. The bill’s stated rationale—protecting crime stoppers personnel and their families from retaliation—appears to have been broadly accepted.
The central policy tension is between Florida’s strong public-records tradition and the desire to protect the safety and privacy of people connected to crime stoppers programs. Supporters argue that disclosure could expose employees, volunteers, board members, and their families to retaliation from people involved in criminal investigations. Any potential concern would likely come from transparency advocates wary of adding another exemption to public-records law, but no specific organized opposition or disputed amendment is reflected in the provided materials.