Are a public agency's security camera surveillance tapes exempt from Florida's public records law?

Plain-English summary

The general counsel for the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) asked whether surveillance video recorded at the transit authority's facilities is exempt from Florida's public records law. The Attorney General's answer was yes: although the footage is a public record, it is confidential and exempt because it reveals a security system.

The opinion starts from the default rule that records made in the course of an agency's official business, including video recordings, are open to inspection under Chapter 119 unless the Legislature has exempted them. It then applies two overlapping exemptions. Section 281.301, Florida Statutes, makes information relating to the security systems of government property, including audio and visual presentations that reveal such systems, confidential. Section 119.071(3)(a) protects a "security system plan," which is defined to include records and visual presentations that reveal security systems. The opinion relied on two appellate decisions: Critical Intervention Services v. City of Clearwater, where the court held alarm-permit information was exempt because disclosure would imperil safety, and the more recent Lynx case, where the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that bus surveillance footage reveals the capabilities and vulnerabilities of a transit security system and is therefore confidential. By the same reasoning, the office concluded PSTA's facility surveillance tapes are confidential and exempt.

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

Government agencies and public records officers

The opinion concluded that surveillance recordings from an agency's security cameras, while technically public records, are confidential and exempt from disclosure under sections 281.301 and 119.071(3)(a) because they reveal a security system. The office treated the footage as falling within the statutory "security system plan" definition, which covers visual presentations relating directly to the physical security of a facility.

Government attorneys

The opinion ties the result to the statutory text and to controlling case law. It noted that section 119.071(2)(d), which the requester also cited, addresses undercover law enforcement activities and did not apply, since PSTA did not indicate its cameras were used for that purpose. The exemption it relied on flows from section 281.301 as clarified and recreated in section 119.071 during the 2001 legislative session, and from the appellate holdings in Critical Intervention Services and Lynx.

Common questions

Q: Can the public get copies of a government agency's security camera footage in Florida?
A: According to this opinion, no. The Attorney General concluded surveillance video that reveals an agency's security system is confidential and exempt under sections 281.301 and 119.071(3)(a), even though it is a public record.

Q: Why is surveillance video exempt if it is a public record?
A: Because the footage reveals the security system's capabilities and, by extension, its vulnerabilities. The opinion followed the Lynx decision, which held that releasing such recordings would expose how the system works.

Q: Does this exemption depend on the cameras being for law enforcement?
A: No. The opinion noted that the separate exemption for undercover law enforcement activities in section 119.071(2)(d) did not apply here. The security-system exemption applies to ordinary facility surveillance.

Q: What kinds of records does the security-system exemption cover?
A: Section 119.071(3)(a) defines a "security system plan" broadly to include records, photographs, and audio and visual presentations that relate directly to the physical security of a facility or that reveal security systems.

Background and statutory framework

Florida's Public Records Law, Chapter 119, presumes that materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business are open for inspection and copying unless the Legislature has carved out an exemption. The Florida Supreme Court described the breadth of "public records" in Shevin v. Byron, Harless, and confirmed that exemptions are for the Legislature to create in Wait v. Florida Power & Light. Two statutes supply the exemption here. Section 281.301 makes information relating to the security systems of public (and certain private) property confidential, including records, photographs, and audio and visual presentations that reveal such systems. Section 119.071(3)(a), added when the Legislature clarified and recreated the exemption in 2001, protects a "security system plan," defined to include visual presentations relating directly to the physical security of a facility. Florida courts applied these provisions to alarm-permit records in Critical Intervention Services v. City of Clearwater and to transit surveillance footage in the Lynx case, and this opinion extended that reasoning to PSTA's facility cameras.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• Ch. 119, Fla. Stat. (Public Records Law)
• § 281.301, Fla. Stat. (security systems exemption)
• § 119.071, Fla. Stat. (general exemptions)
• s. 24(a), Article I, Florida Constitution; s. 286.011, Fla. Stat.

Cases:

• Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1980)
• Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company, 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979)
• Critical Intervention Services, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 908 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
• Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority d/b/a Lynx v. Post-Newsweek Stations, Orlando, Inc., Case No. 5D14-360 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 30, 2015)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/security-systems-video-tapes-public-records
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1535

Original opinion text

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 – PUBLIC RECORDS – video tapes from surveillance cameras are confidential and exempt from public inspection. ss. 281.301 and 119.071, Fla. Stat.

Dear Mr. Zimmet:

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.[1] 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]

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.[5]

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:

"2. 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.

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 tape from the cameras installed at the transit authority’s facilities is information which would reveal the existence of a security system. As such, it is my opinion that the surveillance tapes which are made by a security system, while public records, are confidential and exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Law pursuant to sections 281.301 and 119.071, Florida Statutes.

Sincerely,

Pam Bondi

Attorney General

PB/tals

[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).

[4] 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)1., 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.