Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2015 AGO - surveillance video confidentiality and exampt public recordsAndrea Lorenzo-Luaces From: Anthony A. Garganese [agarganese@orlandolaw.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 5:58 PM To: Kevin Smith; Kevin Brunelle; Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces Subject: AGO - surveillance video confidential and exempt public record Please keep this very important opinion in mind going forward related to any installed City video security systems. The below link is to a recent AGO which holds that surveillance video from cameras on a government building are a public record, but are confidential and exempt from public disclosure. It follows the previous 5DCA case which held surveillance videos on public buses was not subject to public disclosure. http://www.mvfloridaleeal.com/ago nsf/Opinions/D1398FE4C9F43FO685257E2DO04461D5 Anthony A. Garganese, Managing Shareholder Board Certified City, County & Local Government law 111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2000 Orlando, Florida 32801 P.O. Box 2873 (32802-2873) Phone (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9596 Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 Cocoa (866) 425-9566 Ft. Lauderdale (954) 670-1979 Website: www.orlandolaw.net Email: agarganese ,orlandolaw.net Any incoming e-mail reply to this communication will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we may not receive your reply and/or we may not receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time -sensitive by means other than e-mail. Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. 1 .Advisory Legal Opinion - Security Systems -- Video Tapes -- Public Records Page 1 of 4 Huvisory Legai upmion - AGO 2015-06 Number: AGO 2015-06 Date: April 16, 2015 Subject: Security Systems -- Video Tapes -- Public Records Mr. Alan S. Zimmet General Counsel for Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority One Tampa City Center, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33601 RE: SECURITY SYSTEMS - VIDEO SURVEILLANCE TAPES tapes from surveillance cameras are confidential inspection. ss. 281.301 and 119.071, Fla. Stat. Dear Mr. Zimmet: A Print Version - PUBLIC RECORDS - video and exempt from public The Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) asks the following question: Are surveillance video recordings from PSTA facilities exempt from public disclosure pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301, Florida Statutes (as part of a security system plan), and section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes (as information revealing the surveillance techniques or procedures of an agency)? In sum: Surveillance tapes from a security system for a public building constitute information which reveals a security system which is confidential pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301, Florida Statutes. Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, Florida's Public Records Law, provides a right of access to the records of state and local governments as well as private entities acting on their behalf.[l] This right of access applies to all materials made or received in connection with the conduct of official business, when such materials are used to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge.[2] All such materials are open for inspection and copying, unless the Legislature has exempted them from disclosure.[3] http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/D1398FE4C9F43FO685257E2DO04461D5 9/4/2015 .Advisory Legal Opinion - Security Systems -- Video Tapes -- Public Records Page 2 of 4 Clearly, video surveillance recordings created in the course of official business of the PSTA would be public records.[4] Your question, however, implicates the exemptions for security systems and surveillance techniques contained in sections 281.301 and 119.071, Florida Statutes. 151 Section 281.301, Florida Statutes, provides: "Security systems; records and meetings exempt from public access or disclosure. —Information relating to the security systems for any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions, and information relating to the security systems for any privately owned or leased property which is in the possession of any agency as defined in s. 119.011(2), including all records, information, photographs, audio and visual presentations, schematic diagrams, surveys, recommendations, or consultations or portions thereof relating directly to or revealing such systems or information, and all meetings relating directly to or that would reveal such systems or information are confidential and exempt from ss. 119.07(1) and 286.011 and other laws and rules requiring public access or disclosure." (e.s.) This exemption was clarified and recreated in section 119.071, Florida Statutes, during the 2001 Legislative Session.[6] Section 119.071(3)(a) 2., Florida Statutes, provides: 112. A security system plan or portion thereof for: a. Any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions; or b. Any privately owned or leased property held by any agency is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution." As used in this section , the term a "security system plan" includes "all . . . [r]ecords, information, photographs, audio and visual presentations, schematic diagrams, surveys, recommendations, or consultations or portions thereof relating directly to the physical security of the facility or revealing security systems[.]"[7] (e.s.) These provisions were previously addressed by this office when asked whether the names and addresses of applicants for security system permits from a city's building department, as well as the names and addresses of persons or businesses cited for false alarms and addresses where false alarms were reported, were public records open to inspection and copying. In Attorney General Opinion 2004-28, this office cited the Legislature's specific finding of a public necessity for the exemption in section 119.071, Florida Statutes, to ensure public safety, before concluding that the names and addresses of applicants for permits to install security systems would be information which would reveal the existence of a security system and, therefore, would be exempt from public disclosure. http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/D1398FE4C9F43FO685257E2DO04461D5 9/4/2015 Advisory Legal Opinion - Security Systems -- Video Tapes -- Public Records Page 3 of 4 The Second District Court of Appeal, in Critical Intervention Services, Inc. v. City of Clearwater,[8] cited with approval the discussion in Attorney General Opinion 2004-28, when it addressed whether the identity of residential and business alarm permit holders was subject to disclosure. The city relied upon sections 281.301 and 119.071, Florida Statutes, to deny access to the information. The court found that the plain language of the statutes makes confidential all records revealing a security system and stated that disclosure of such information "would imperil the safety of persons and property."[9] More recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority d/b/a Lynx v. Post -Newsweek Stations, Orlando, Inc.,[10] considered whether security tapes from cameras installed on transit authority buses were confidential as revealing the security system. Citing the provisions in section 281.301, Florida Statutes, which state records that directly relate to or reveal information about security systems are confidential, the court concluded that the video footage captured by the bus camera "directly relates to and reveals information about a security system." The court found that the videos "which are records, reveal the capabilities —and as a corollary, the vulnerabilities —of the current system[,]" and, therefore, are confidential and exempt from public inspection. Similarly, a surveillance authority's facilities is of a security system. As tapes which are made by a confidential and exempt f Records Law pursuant to s Sincerely, Pam Bondi Attorney General PB/tals tape from the cameras installed at the transit information which would reveal the existence such, it is my opinion that the surveillance security system, while public records, are rom the disclosure requirements of the Public ections 281.301 and 119.071, Florida Statutes. [1] See s. 119.01(1), Fla. Stat., setting forth the general state policy on public records, and s. 119.011(2), Fla. Stat, defining "[a]gency" to include "any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on behalf of any public agency." [2] And see Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980) ("public records" encompass all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge). [3] See Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company, 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979) . http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/D1398FE4C9F43FO685257E2DO04461D5 9/4/2015 . Advisory Legal Opinion - Security Systems -- Video Tapes -- Public Records Page 4 of 4 [41 See s. 119.011(12), Fla. Stat, defining "Public records" as "all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency." [5] While your question includes s. 119.071(2)(d), Fla. Stat., it would appear that the provisions in subsection (2) of the statute relate to undercover law enforcement activities and you have not indicated that the surveillance cameras within the PSTA facility are used for such purposes. [6] See s. 1, Ch. 2001-361, Laws of Fla. [7] Section 119.071(3)(a)l., Fla. Stat. [8] 908 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). [9] 908 So. 2d at 1197. [10] Case No. 5D14-360, January 30, 2015. Florida Toll Free Numbers: - Fraud Hotline 1-866-966-7226 - Lemon Law 1-800-321-5366 http://www.myfloridalegal.comlago.nsfIOpinions/D1398FE4C9F43FO685257E2DO04461D5 9/4/2015