To: All Citizen Review Panels in the State of Florida and all

Associated City Attorneys, County Attorneys, and Independent

Counsel
From: ACLU of Florida
Howard L. Simon, Interim Executive Director
James Michael Shaw, Jr. ACLU-FL Cooperating Attorney
Daniel Tilley, Legal Director
Kara Gross. Legislative Director and Senior Policy Counsel

Date: Monday, April 22, 2024

Re: Effect of House Bill 601 on the Activities of Existing Citizen-
Review Panels in Florida

On Friday, April 12, 2024, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 601 into law as Chapter
2024-86, Laws of Florida (hereinafter “HB601”).

The language of HB601 is relatively straightforward, but a number of media outlets have
incorrectly overstated the effect of HB601, some going so far as to assert that HB601 effectively bans,
dissolves, or disbands the numerous citizen-review panels currently operating in Florida. See, e.g.,
Adrian Andrews, It's official: DeSantis has signed bills into law that bans citizen police review boards
in Florida, WFSU (Apr. 12, 2024); Elura Nanos, Ron DeSantis poised to sign bill eliminating civilian
boards to investigate police misconduct, MSN.com (Apr. 12, 2024).

This is not accurate, but it highlights the disconnect between what the language of HB601
actually does and what some say that it does. This memorandum describes the language of HB601
and provides guidance to citizen-review panels, city attorneys, county attorneys, and independent
attorneys representing citizen-review panels.

An Overview of Citizen-Review Panels in Florida

Citizen-review panels grew out of the civil-rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s and exist
in many major cities throughout the United States, the first of which having been established in
Kansas City, Missouri in 1959. See Citizen Review of Police: Approaches & Implementation 4 (Dept.
of Justice, 2001); James E. Wright II, PhD, Improving Police-Community Relations: The Role of
Civilian Oversight Agencies in Florida 4 (Leroy Collins Institute, 2022).
 According to a report by the Leroy Collins Institute, there are currently twenty-one citizen-
review panels operating in Florida cities: specifically, citizen-review panels exist in Bradenton,
Daytona Beach, Delray Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Ft. Pierce, Gainesville, Key West,
Kissimmee, Lakeland, Miami, North Miami, North Miami Beach, Ocoee, Orlando, Pensacola,
St. Petersburg, Tallahassee, Tampa, West Palm Beach, and Winter Haven. See Wright II, supra, at
15. In addition, some Florida counties have created citizen-review panels, including Broward County,
Miami-Dade County, and Orange County. Some of these panels were created by ordinance, some by
executive order, some by resolution, and some by charter provision enacted by the voters.

An Overview of Citizen-Review Boards’ Authority Regarding Complaints of Misconduct

The authority of citizen-review panels to investigate or discipline Florida law-enforcement

officers accused of misconduct is restricted by the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights (“PBR”), codified
in sections 112.531–.535, Florida Statutes. The PBR essentially provides that, where there has been
an allegation of misconduct by a law-enforcement officer, any investigation and discipline can be
conducted only by that officer’s employing agency, and all records relating to the investigation are
exempt from disclosure under public-records laws until the investigation is complete.

For example, section 112.533 provides: “Any political subdivision that initiates or receives a
complaint alleging misconduct by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer must within 5
business days forward the complaint to the employing agency of the officer who is the subject of the
complaint for review or investigation.” § 112.533(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2023). The statute further
provides that, once the officer’s employing agency receives the complaint, the complaint and all
information received is exempt from public-records laws “until the investigation ceases to be active”
or until the officer is notified in writing that the agency has “concluded” the investigation. Id. § (2)(a).
Only then do the records of the investigation become subject to Florida public-records laws that allow
citizen-review panels to review them – but, by that point in time, pursuant to the terms of the PBR,
the investigation has either “ceased to be active” or has been “concluded.”

These provisions of Florida law, in effect prior to the enactment of HB601, effectively prohibit
citizen-review panels from participating in an investigation or disciplinary decision concerning a law-
enforcement officer until after the investigation has been concluded and all disciplinary decisions
have been made. The PBR also prohibits citizen-review panels from questioning police officers
subject to discipline, though they may gather additional information from civilians in connection with
their review of closed investigations. See D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410, 426-27 (Fla.
2017).

Within the confines of the PBR, Florida citizen-review panels are empowered to review or
audit closed investigations and offer their comments, just as any other Florida citizen would be able

2
to do by requesting copies of materials relating to closed investigations under Florida’s public-records
laws.

An Overview of Citizen-Review Boards’ Authority Unrelated to Complaints of Misconduct

Apart from reviewing closed investigations of allegations of misconduct, several Florida

citizen-review panels maintain a number of other functions primarily regarding community-safety
and policy recommendations. For instance, Gainesville’s Police Advisory Council is empowered to
“gather information, receive community input concerning public safety issues and law enforcement
needs and concerns, and make policy recommendations to the city regarding all aspects of the delivery
of public safety services with the goal of maintaining a safe city that enjoys a strong, positive and
trusting relationship between the community and the city police department.” Gainesville City Code
§ 2-301. Tampa’s Citizen Police Review Board is empowered to “make recommendations to the
mayor and chief of police regarding hiring criteria and to participate in the interview panel for
prospective officers” and “conduct a community survey every two (2) years to obtain public feedback
regarding the department and its policies and procedures.” Tampa City Code § 18-8(c). Orlando’s
Citizens’ Police Review Board reviews “policies, procedures, rules, regulations, general or special
orders pertaining to the use of force and police conduct toward the citizenry.” Orlando City Code §
48.17(3). These are just some examples of activities carried out by citizen-review boards apart from
reviewing closed investigations of allegations of misconduct by a law-enforcement officer.

The Text of HB 601

The final version of HB601 contains seven sections. See Chapter 2024-86, Laws of Florida.
Section 1 and Section 6 authorize sheriffs and police chiefs, respectively, to establish “civilian
oversight boards” of their own, consisting of three-to-seven members, one of whom must be a retired
law-enforcement officer. Id. §§ 1, 6. Section 2 amends section 112.533 of the PBR to clarify that
municipalities may not adopt or enforce an ordinance relating to the “receipt, processing, or
investigation” of complaints of misconduct by law-enforcement officers or “[c]ivilian oversight of
law enforcement agencies’ investigations of complaints of misconduct by law enforcement or
correctional officers.” Id. § 2.1 Section 3 makes technical changes to section 112.532 of the PBR. Id.
§ 3. Section 4 provides for a raise in salary for sheriffs. Id. § 4. Section 5 sets forth a legislative
determination that the act fulfills “an important state interest.” Id. § 5. Section 7 provides that the act
shall take effect July 1, 2024. Id. § 7.

1
Section 2 explicitly restricts its applicability to “ordinances” concerning receipt, processing,
investigation, or oversight, and thus does nothing to prevent citizens from independently joining
together to form their own panel, as well as those created through other means unrelated to an
ordinance.
3
 Section 2 is the operative section and the section that appears to be the source of confusion in
the media and among some members of citizen-review panels. The following sections explain the
effect of Section 2 on citizen-review panels in Florida.

Sections 1 and 6 Authorize New Panels But Do Not Prohibit Existing Ones or New Ones

Section 1 creates Florida Statute 30.61, which states: “A county sheriff may establish or
maintain a civilian oversight board to review the policies and procedures of his or her office and its
subdivisions.” § 30.61(1), Fla. Stat. (2024) (emphasis added). Section 6 creates Florida Statute §
166.0486, which states that the chief of a municipal police department “may” do the same thing.
Neither section requires sheriffs or police chiefs to establish such boards; it merely authorizes them
to do so. Both sections provide that such a board “must be composed of at least three and up to seven
members” appointed by the sheriff or police chief, respectively, and that one of the members shall be
a retired law-enforcement officer. Nothing in HB601 provides that a city or county may not establish
a board of its own in addition to the one established by a sheriff or police chief.

Sections 1 and 6 were likely unnecessary as it seems to be within the inherent authority of
sheriffs and police chiefs to receive advice or recommendations from any member of the public,
including from a panel of individuals designated by the sheriff or police chief for that purpose. In
fact, a number of sheriffs and police chiefs had already done so prior to the enactment of HB601. For
example, Tampa’s police chief created the “Chief’s Community Impact Team” in 2020. The police
department for the City of Belle Isle has likewise established a “Police Advisory Board.” The
Seminole County Sheriff fashioned the “Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Civilian Review Board.”
These boards pre-existed HB601 and were set up without the need for a statute specifically
authorizing their creation. Instead, these boards were created through the use of sheriffs’ and police
chiefs’ inherent authority to direct the day-to-day operations of their departments and to receive
advice and recommendations from any member of the public.

Though HB601 specifically authorizes the creation of three-to-seven-member boards

containing at least one retired law-enforcement officer, nothing in HB601 purports to strip sheriffs or
police chiefs of their pre-existing inherent authority to create or maintain boards that advise them as
to matters of concern to their agencies.

In short, Sections 1 and 6 merely codify one aspect of the inherent authority that sheriffs and
police chiefs already had to set up advisory boards. HB601 contains no provisions prohibiting sheriffs,
police chiefs, or any component of municipal governments from setting up other boards, task forces,
or similar community-input groups that exist independently of the “civilian oversight boards”
established by sheriffs or police chiefs pursuant to Sections 1 and 6 of HB601.

4
 HB601 Has No Effect on Citizen-Review Panels Established Other Than by Ordinance

Section 2 explicitly restricts its applicability to “ordinances” concerning receipt, processing,

investigation, or oversight, and thus does nothing to prevent citizens from independently joining
together to form their own panel, nor does it prohibit government-established panels created through
other legal means apart from an ordinance. Notably, several municipalities have citizen-review boards
established by other means. For instance, Key West’s Citizens Review Board is established in its City
Charter, not by ordinance. See Key West City Charter § 1.07. The Citizen Review Board for the
Tampa Police Department was originally established by an executive order of Tampa’s mayor in
2015. See Tampa Exec. Ord. 2015-4. Section 2 has no effect on citizen-review panels such as these
because they exist independently of an “ordinance.”

HB601 Restates Preexisting PBR Provisions Relating to

“Receipt and Processing” of Complaints but Does Not Change Them

Section 112.533 is entitled “Receipt and processing of complaints” and is a subsection of the
PBR that pre-exists HB 601. As explained above, this section requires that complaints received by
political subdivisions of the state must be forwarded within five business days to the affected officer’s
employing agency, which then conducts the investigation and makes disciplinary decisions behind
closed doors and releases details to the public only after the investigation has been concluded.

Even prior to the enactment of HB601, municipalities did not have the authority to enact
ordinances that altered these procedures. The powers of municipalities are set forth in the Municipal
Home Rule Powers Act, section 166.021(3), Florida Statutes (2023), which states:

The Legislature recognizes that pursuant to the grant of power set forth
in § 2(b), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, the legislative body of
each municipality has the power to enact legislation concerning any
subject matter upon which the state Legislature may act, except:
(a) The subjects of annexation, merger, and exercise of
extraterritorial power, which require general or special law
pursuant to § 2(c), Art. VIII of the State Constitution;
(b) Any subject expressly prohibited by the constitution;
(c) Any subject expressly preempted to state or county government
by the constitution or by general law; and
(d) Any subject preempted to a county pursuant to a county charter
adopted under the authority of §§ 1(g), 3, and 6(e), Art. VIII of
the State Constitution.

5
Id. The following section states:

The provisions of this section shall be so construed as to secure for

municipalities the broad exercise of home rule powers granted by the
constitution. It is the further intent of the Legislature to extend to
municipalities the exercise of powers for municipal governmental,
corporate, or proprietary purposes not expressly prohibited by the
constitution, general or special law, or county charter and to remove
any limitations, judicially imposed or otherwise, on the exercise of
home rule powers other than those so expressly prohibited. [. . . .]

§ 166.021(4), Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added). Put more succinctly, a municipality may do
anything that the Florida Legislature may do, except to the extent prohibited.

Section 112.533 of the PBR already sets forth a comprehensive scheme for the “receipt and
processing” of complaints, and the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act already provided that a
municipality may not overturn these procedures. Accordingly, all existing ordinances affecting the
“receipt and processing” of complaints were already required to comply with section 112.533 even
before enactment of HB601.

In providing that a municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance relating to the “receipt”
or “processing” of a complaint of misconduct by a law-enforcement officer, Section 2 of HB601
simply restated one aspect of what was already clear from the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act;
HB601 simply states that the procedures in the PBR cannot be changed by ordinance. As a result, this
provision appears to have no substantive effect on existing citizen-review boards’ procedures when
already compliant with the PBR.

HB601 Prohibits “Investigating” Complaints of Misconduct,

But It Does Not Prohibit Reviewing Closed Complaints

As explained above, the PBR shields internal-affairs investigations from public-record and
public-meeting laws until an investigation is “concluded” or “ceases to be active.” At that point, the
investigation is over, and records of the internal-affairs investigation and disciplinary decision
become subject to public-records laws. Accordingly, as with the prohibition on enforcing ordinances
relating to “receipt” or “processing” of complaints, HB601 prohibits ordinances relating to
“investigating” when the PBR already prohibited investigations outside of an officer’s employing
agency.

6
 Many ordinances creating citizen-review panels make clear that their authority is limited to
simply reviewing closed investigations, as opposed to conducting the investigations themselves. For
instance, Naples’s enacting ordinance provides that its Police Review Board is created to “review the
closed departmental investigations of citizen complaints filed against police officers.” Naples City
Code § 2.451(a). Tampa’s ordinance provides that its Citizen Police Review Board shall “review
closed internal investigations where certain discipline has been imposed and issue a finding to the
TPD Chief of Police . . . .” Tampa City Code § 18-8(c)(1). Daytona Beach’s Citizens Police Review
Board ordinance provides that the board “shall review completed departmental investigations and
disciplinary outcomes thereof . . . .” Daytona Beach Code § 58-201(a).

HB601 does not purport to prohibit members of the civilian-review boards from reviewing
records relating to closed investigations, nor would such a prohibition be constitutionally permissible.
Section 24 of the Declaration of Rights in Florida’s Constitution states:

Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in
connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the
state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted
pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This
section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of
government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties,
municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission,
or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution.

Fla. Const. art. I § 24(a) (emphasis added). “Every person” would include members of citizen-review
panels. Public records must be produced to whoever requests them, regardless of the identity of the
requester. See Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Sundy, 145 So. 3d 980, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see
also Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004) (“[T]he disclosure does not
depend on the identity of the requester. As a general rule, if the information is subject to disclosure,
it belongs to all.”). The Legislature cannot keep records of closed investigations from the eyes of
citizen-review panels or authorize law-enforcement agencies to withhold them from members of
citizen-review panels even though everyone else is entitled to see them.

To summarize, Florida citizen-review panels do not participate in investigations and have no

involvement with them until the investigations have been completed. With regard to allegations of
police misconduct, civilian review panels do only two things: (1) review records relating to closed
investigations; and (2) express sentiments relating to the closed investigations. HB601 does not
prohibit citizen-review panels from doing either thing.

In addition, Florida citizen-review panels review a variety of law-enforcement policies and

procedures and make policy recommendations for the improvement of such policies. Nothing in

7
HB601 purports to curtail this very important contribution that civilian-review panels have made and
can continue to make.

HB 601 Prohibits Ordinances Relating to “Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Agencies’

Investigations,” but No Existing Citizen-Review Panels Exercise Such Oversight

Lastly, Section 2 prohibits the enactment or enforcement of ordinances relating to “[c]ivilian

oversight of law enforcement agencies’ investigations of complaints of misconduct by law
enforcement or correctional officers.” The term “oversight” means “watchful or responsible care” or
“regulatory supervision.” Crosby Lodge, Inc. v. Nat’s Indian Gaming Comm’n, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1198,
1206 (D. Nev. 2011) (quoting https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oversight). None of
Florida’s citizen-review panels exercise any kind of supervision over any law-enforcement agencies’
internal-affairs investigations. To the contrary, they are already prohibited from doing so by the PBR.
They, instead, review closed investigations and offer their comments which, as explained above, are
constitutionally protected activities.

As with the other provisions of Section 2, this aspect of Section 2 merely codifies the status
quo by prohibiting citizen-review panels from expanding their authority to include oversight
authority, which they were already prohibited from doing under the PBR and Municipal Home Rule
Powers Act.

Conclusion

Contrary to several inaccurate reports about HB601, the legislation as enacted has little or no
practical effect on existing citizen-review panels in Florida. It only applies to panels created by
ordinance (not community-input groups created through charter amendments or through the authority
of government officials such as sheriffs and mayors), and the substantive provisions do not prohibit
what current ordinance-created panels currently do.

Ultimately, nothing in HB601 dissolves existing panels, prohibits them from carrying out
functions unrelated to complaints of misconduct (such as reviewing policies and procedures of their
law-enforcement departments and making recommendations for the reform of those policies and
procedures), alters existing PBR-compliant procedures for receiving and processing complaints, or
prohibits them from reviewing and commenting upon closed investigations. Instead, HB 601
essentially restates the status quo, stating that citizen review panels can continue as long as
municipalities do not expand citizen-review panels’ authority beyond the boundaries already set by
the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights.