GOVERNMENT-IN-THE-SUNSHINE-MANUAL
177
an existing exemption, the exemption shall be repealed on October 2 of the fth year, unless the
Legislature acts to reenact the exemption. Section 119.15(3), F.S.
2. Strict construction
e general purpose of Ch. 119, F.S., “is to open public records to allow Florida’s citizens
to discover the actions of their government.” Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheri ‘s Oce, 698
So. 2d 1365, 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “Because Florida’s public policy favors disclosure, “the
Public Records Act is construed liberally in favor of openness, and exemptions from disclosure are
construed narrowly and limited to their designated purpose.” City of Miami Beach v. Miami New
Times, LLC, 314 So. 3d 562, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), quoting from Rameses, Inc. v. Demings, 29
So. 3d 418, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). See also National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Associated
Press, 18 So. 3d 1201, 1206 (Fla.1st DCA 2009), review denied, 37 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2010);
Krischer v. D’Amato, 674 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Tribune Company v. Public
Records, 493 So. 2d 480, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied sub nom., Gillum v. Tribune
Company, 503 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1987).
An agency claiming an exemption from disclosure bears the burden of proving the right to
an exemption. See Bareld v. School Board of Manatee County, 135 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA
2014); Woolling v. Lamar, 764 So. 2d 765, 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So. 2d
1186 (Fla. 2001); Bareld v. City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department, 639 So. 2d 1012, 1015
(Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 649 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1994); and Florida Freedom Newspapers,
Inc. v. Dempsey, 478 So. 2d 1128, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also Bludworth v. Palm Beach
Newspapers, Inc., 476 So. 2d 775, 780n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.
1986); Tribune Company v. Public Records, supra, stating that doubt as to the applicability of an
exemption should be resolved in favor of disclosure rather than secrecy. And see Times Publishing
Company v. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487, 492, noting that the judiciary cannot create
a privilege of condentiality to accommodate the desires of government and that “[a]n open
government is crucial to the citizens’ ability to adequately evaluate the decisions of elected and
appointed ocials”; rather the “right to access public documents is virtually unfettered, save
only the statutory exemptions designed to achieve a balance between an informed public and the
ability of the government to maintain secrecy in the public interest.” Accord AGO 80-78 (“policy
considerations” do not, standing alone, justify nondisclosure of public records).
3. Retroactive application of new exemptions
Access to public records is a substantive right. Memorial Hospital-West Volusia, Inc. v.
News-Journal Corporation, 784 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2001). us, a statute aecting that right is
presumptively prospective and there must be a clear legislative intent for the statute to apply
retroactively. Id. Generally, the critical date in determining whether a document is subject to
disclosure is the date the public records request is made; the law in eect on that date applies. Baker
County Press, Inc. v. Baker County Medical Services, 870 So. 2d 189, 192-193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
However, if the Legislature is “clear in its intent,” an exemption may be applied retroactively.
Campus Communications, Inc. v. Earnhardt, 821 So. 2d 388, 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review
denied, 848 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2003) (statute exempting autopsy photographs from disclosure
is remedial and may be retroactively applied). See also Palm Beach County Sheri’s Oce v. Sun-
Sentinel Company, LLC, 226 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); City of Orlando v. Desjardins,
493 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 1986); and Roberts v. Butterworth, 668 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1996). Cf.
Cebrian By and rough Cebrian v. Klein, 614 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (amendment
to child abuse statute limiting access to unfounded reports was remedial in nature and therefore
applied retroactively); AGO 11-16 (applying exemption to a public records request received before
the statute’s eective date because the legislation creating the exemption states that it “applies
to information held by an agency, before, on, or after the eective date of this exemption”);
and AGO 94-70 (amendment to expungement statute appears to be remedial and, therefore,
should be retroactively applied to those records ordered expunged prior to the eective date of the
amendment).