Does Florida law require redacting or distorting a 911 caller's voice before releasing the recording?

Plain-English summary

Indian River County's sheriff asked a narrow but charged question: when someone makes a 911 call, is the sound of the caller's voice itself "information which may identify any person" that section 365.171, Florida Statutes, makes confidential? In other words, before releasing a 911 recording as a public record, must the agency distort the caller's voice the way it must redact the caller's name and address? The Attorney General concluded the answer is no.

A 911 recording is a public record under Chapter 119. Section 365.171(12) makes confidential the name, address, telephone number, and personal information that may identify a person requesting emergency service. The longstanding practice, going back to Opinion 90-43, is that an agency releases the recording after redacting that identifying information. The sheriff's question pushed further: is the voice sound itself identifying? The office acknowledged that a person's voice "may" identify them to someone who knows them. But the Legislature has never specified that the voice sound is protected. In fact, lawmakers considered and rejected bills (in 2010 and 2011) that would have either made 911 recordings confidential or required voices to be digitally distorted; both died in committee. Because the statute does not clearly cover the voice sound, and the Legislature declined to add such protection, the office would not read it in by interpretation. It noted that voice-identification technology may warrant the Legislature revisiting the issue, and recommended seeking legislative clarification.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion covered

Sheriffs and records custodians

The office advised that the existing confidentiality in section 365.171(12) reaches identifying details (name, address, telephone number, personal information) but not the sound of the caller's voice. An agency must redact the identifying information before release, but the statute did not require distorting or withholding the voice audio itself. The office expressly recommended seeking legislative clarification rather than treating the voice as protected.

Journalists and the public

For a records requester, the opinion supports access to the audio of a 911 call once the statutorily identified information is redacted. The office declined to expand the exemption to cover the voice itself, consistent with the rule that public-records exemptions are construed narrowly and doubts resolved toward disclosure.

Common questions

Q: Can the public get a copy of a 911 call recording in Florida?
A: Yes. A 911 recording is a public record. Under section 365.171(12), the agency redacts the caller's name, address, telephone number, and identifying personal information before releasing it.

Q: Does the agency have to distort the caller's voice?
A: According to this opinion, no. The office found no clear statutory basis to treat the voice sound as protected, noting the Legislature had rejected bills that would have required voice distortion.

Q: Why didn't the AG just say the voice could identify someone?
A: The office agreed a voice "may" identify a caller to an acquaintance, but said it could not read a confidentiality requirement into the statute that the Legislature considered and declined to enact. It recommended seeking legislative clarification.

Background and statutory framework

Florida's Public Records Law, Chapter 119, opens government records to inspection unless a specific exemption applies, and Article I, section 24 of the State Constitution carries the same presumption. A 911 recording fits the broad definition of "public records" in section 119.011(12). Section 365.171(12) exempts identifying information about a person requesting emergency service. The provision grew over time: before a 1990 amendment it covered only name, address, and telephone number (and Opinion 90-43 read it to require releasing the rest of the recording after deleting those), and Chapter 90-305 broadened it to personal or identifying information. None of these versions named the voice sound. The office also pointed to section 817.568, which separately treats a "voice print" as biometric identification in another context, underscoring that the Legislature knows how to address voice identification when it intends to. Given the rejected 2010 and 2011 bills, the office declined to extend section 365.171 to the voice itself.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• § 365.171, Fla. Stat. (E911)
• Ch. 119, Fla. Stat. (Public Records Law)
• Article I, section 24, Florida Constitution

Cases:

• Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 698 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
• Krischer v. D'Amato, 674 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
• Seminole County v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
• Tribune Company v. Public Records, 493 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/public-records-emergency-calls-voice-recordings
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1540

Original opinion text

The Honorable Deryl Loar

Sheriff of Indian River County

4055 41st Avenue

Vero Beach, Florida  32960

Attention:  Major James G. Harpring

Dear Sheriff Loar:

You ask the following question:

Is the recording and sound of a voice of the caller in an E911 call requesting emergency service considered "information which may identify any person" which is made confidential by section 365.171, Florida Statutes?

In sum:

While section 365.171(12), Florida Statues, makes confidential information obtained by a public agency which may identify a person requesting emergency services or reporting an emergency in an E911 call, there is no clear indication that the Legislature intended to include the sound of a person’s voice as information protected from disclosure to the public at large.

Florida’s Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, provides a right of access to the records of state and local governments, as well as private entities acting on their behalf.[1]  For purposes of the law, the term "public records" is defined to include

"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."

The only exceptions to the requirements of the Public Records Law are those established by general law or by the Constitution.[2]  There is no question that the sound recording of an E911 call is a public record for purposes of the Public Records Law.[3]  Section 365.171(12)(a), Florida Statutes, however, provides:

"Any record, recording, or information, or portions thereof, obtained by a public agency or a public safety agency for the purpose of providing services in an emergency and which reveals the name, address, telephone number, or personal information about, or information which may identify any person requesting emergency service or reporting an emergency by accessing an emergency communications E911 system is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, except that such record or information may be disclosed to a public safety agency. The exemption applies only to the name, address, telephone number or personal information about, or information which may identify any person requesting emergency services or reporting an emergency while such information is in the custody of the public agency or public safety agency providing emergency services. . . ."

Prior to its amendment in 1990, the statute, then section 365.171(15), Florida Statutes, merely provided confidentiality for information "which reveals the name, address, or telephone number of any person requesting emergency service or reporting an emergency by accessing an emergency telephone number '911' system[.]"[4]  Relying on this language, it was concluded in Attorney General Opinion 90-43 that only that portion of the voice recording of a "911" call relating to the name, address, and telephone number of the person calling the emergency telephone number "911" to report an emergency or to request emergency assistance is exempt from the disclosure requirements of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.  Thus, the opinion concluded that the voice recording of a "911" call is subject to disclosure once the name, address, and telephone number of the caller have been deleted.

Following issuance of Attorney General Opinion 90-43, the first sentence of section 365.171(15), Florida Statutes, was amended to extend confidentiality to certain personal, identifying information.  The legislative history for enactment of Chapter 90-305, Laws of Florida, amending the statute, reveals that this change in subsection (15) was intended to "[p]rovide for confidentiality of '911' recordings or portions of such recordings when processing information requests (under the provisions of section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes . . .) for personal information or information which might identify a person requesting or reporting emergency service by use of the '911' number."[5]

This office subsequently concluded that a tape recording of a "911" call is a public record subject to disclosure and copying when in the custody of an emergency services department, but that portion of a "911" call containing the name, address, telephone number, and personal information or information which might identify a person requesting emergency service or reporting an emergency must be redacted by the records custodian prior to disclosure.[6]  

The general purpose of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, "is to open public records to allow Florida's citizens to discover the actions of their government."[7]  The Public Records Act is to be liberally construed in favor of open government, and exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed so they are limited to their stated purpose.[8]  Any doubt as to the applicability of a Public Records exemption should be resolved in favor of disclosure rather than secrecy.[9]    

It is reasonable to conclude that the sound of a person’s voice "may" identify the individual requesting emergency services or reporting an emergency to someone who is acquainted with or related to the caller.[10]  The Legislature, however, has not chosen to specify that the recording of an oral communication in an E911 call is protected from disclosure.  Rather, it appears that the issue was considered during the 2010 Legislative Session.  Legislation was introduced in response to a situation in which the family of an overdose victim had to endure repeated playbacks of the 911 call reporting their son’s death.[11]  Proposed Committee Bill 10-03a by the House Governmental Affairs Policy Committee would have made confidential any recording of a request for emergency services or report of an emergency using the E911 system, allowing the release of a transcript of the recording 60 days after the date of the call or by court order upon a showing of good cause.  The bill, however, died in committee.  The following year, Senate Bill 1310 sought to amend section 365.171, Florida Statutes, to provide that if an oral recording of a 911 emergency transmission is requested, the recording must be digitally modified in order to protect the personal identity of any person requesting emergency services or reporting an emergency.[12]  The bill was temporarily postponed while in committee and was not addressed further.[13]  

Thus, while it could be asserted that the sound of a person’s voice may identify an individual, the Legislature has considered legislation requiring the distortion of a person’s voice requesting services or reporting an emergency in a 911 recording and chose to not do so.  This office recognizes, however, that advancements in technology to identify a person by his or her voice may have created a need for the Legislature to revisit the matter and would suggest that you seek legislative clarification in how best to protect the identity of an E911 caller.  

Absent a clear provision for the confidentiality or exemption of a voice recording of the person making an E911 call, I cannot conclude that section 365.171(12), Florida makes the sound of a person’s voice "information" which would identify the caller for purposes of redacting confidential information from the call.  

Sincerely,

Pam Bondi

Attorney General

PB/tals

[1]  Article I, s. 24, Fla. Const., also recognizes a right of access to public records of virtually all state and local governmental entities, including the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

[2]  See s. 24, Art. I, Fla. Const., recognizing an exception from public disclosure for records exempted pursuant to the section or made confidential by the Florida Constitution.  Subsection (c) states:  "The legislature, however, may provide by general law passed by a two-thirds vote of each house for the exemption of records from the requirements of subsection (a) and the exemption of meetings from the requirements of subsection (b), provided that such law shall state with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and shall be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law."

[3]  See s. 119.011(12), Fla. Stat., defining "public records" to include:

"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."

See also Ops. Att’y Gen. Fla. 93-60 (1993) and 90-43 (1990).

[4]  See Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 95-48 (1995), 93-60 (1993), and 90-43 (1990) (while the portion of a voice recording revealing the name, address, and telephone number of a person reporting an emergency or requesting assistance using a "911" number is exempt from disclosure, the public agency is required to release the remainder of the voice recording once the exempt material has been deleted).

[5]  See Final Staff Analysis & Economic Impact Statement of CS/HB 1437, House of Representatives Committee on Community Affairs, dated June 28, 1990.

[6]  Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 93-60 (1993).

[7]  Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 698 So. 2d 1365, 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA

1997).

[8]  Krischer v. D'Amato, 674 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Seminole County v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1988); 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).  

[9]  Tribune Company v. Public Records, id.

[10] Compare s. 817.568(1)(f)2., Fla. Stat., defining "[p]ersonal identification information" for purposes of the statute to include "[u]nique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation[.]"  (e.s.)

[11]  See http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/house-leader-pushes-bill-to-keep-911-calls-private/nL5LM/.

[12]  See Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, Florida Senate, SB 1310, dated April 3, 2011.

[13]  Governmental Oversight & Accountability Committee, Florida Senate, April 5, 2011.  See SB 1310 History at: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/1310#1310/?Tab=BillHistory&_suid=1409933439157007642448516300654.