SC2023-1320
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.420 to reflect a statutory change requiring court records in cases giving rise to sealed criminal history records to be maintained as confidential and exempt from public disclosure. This was an administrative rulemaking on the Court's own motion to align procedural rules with recent legislation.
The Court amended Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xxiv) to require the clerk of court to maintain as confidential any court record in a case giving rise to the Department of Law Enforcement's sealing of a criminal history record pursuant to section 943.0595, Florida Statutes.
[1] Court rules may be amended to reflect statutory changes regarding the confidentiality of judicial records.
[2] Court records in cases that give rise to automatically sealed criminal history records are confidential and exempt from public access.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[u]pon such notification, the clerk of the court must automatically keep the related court record in the case giving rise to the department's sealing of the criminal history record confidential and exempt from s[ection] 119.071(1) and s[ection] 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.”
States the statutory mandate that prompted the rule amendment requiring automatic confidentiality of court records when criminal history records are sealed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEffective July 1, 2023, section 943.0595, Florida Statutes was amended to require the Department of Law Enforcement to notify the clerk of court when …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidentiality Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 (Public Access to and Protection of Judicial Branch Records) to reflect a recent statutory change making court records in cases giving rise to sealed criminal history records confidential and exempt. 1 Under section 943.0595, Florida Statutes (2023), the Department of Law Enforcement must automatically seal criminal history records that meet specified criteria, such as when “[a] judgment of acquittal was rendered by a judge as to all counts.” A
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; see also Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(d). recent statutory change, effective July 1, 2023, requires the department to then notify the clerk of court, and “[u]pon such notification, the clerk of the court must automatically keep the related court record in the case giving rise to the department’s sealing of the criminal history record confidential and exempt from s[ection] 119.071(1) and s[ection] 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.” Ch. 2023-189, § 1, Laws of Fla. We now amend subdivision (d) (Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records) of rule 2.420 to list section 943.0595 and a court record in a case giving rise to the sealed criminal history record in the list of statutes and information that the clerk of court must maintain as confidential.
The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration are amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring. The amendment is effective immediately. Because the amendment was not published for comment previously, interested persons have 75 -2-days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court. 2 It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER