Legislative Summary Week Four, 2009

As we begin our fourth full week of work, committee meetings are in full-swing, bills are beginning to move (or die), philosophical divides are becoming more defined, and the "big" issues are beginning to take over. As you certainly know, there is no "bigger" issue this year than the State Budget, which continues to decline while estimators project greater deficits. There is not a single decision being made in the halls of the legislature that is not made with both eyes fixed squarely on the fiscal impact of the legislation. If a bill will cost money, it is in deep trouble. If it creates revenue, it may get a second look. All legislation is being vetted based on its real or perceived cost.

The FASCO bill regarding detain and hold authority is still viable. Thus far it as not been run over by the budget freight train. However, under the budget driven standards of fiscal impact, what a bill will cost taxpayers or government agencies, has become the primary qualifying factor. There is discussion, primarily among legislative staff, that our bill, while having no fiscal impact, will give police powers (arrest) to Security Officers. Refuting that talk has been my primary effort throughout the session. Under existing case law, the authority to detain does not rise to an official arrest. Our bill (SB 1406) was on a senate committee agenda last week but was not heard as the scheduled time ran out after only three bills of seven on the agenda had been heard.

Every year, on your behalf, I review various bills to exempt public records from the statutory requirement that all documents, electronic messages, etc. are open to public view. While the sponsors of such legislation are usually well-intentioned, they are often woefully unaware of the adverse impact their bill will have on the lawful research and review of such materials in the security field. This year 137 bills that have some impact on public records and meetings have been filed. Some are "shell bills" which have no content, but hold a bill slot so content can be amended in later. These are especially worrisome because they are often used as surprise legislation that gets very little review and comment. Constant monitoring is the only defense.

Each day, it seems a new group is traveling to the Capitol to lobby lawmakers on the importance of their pot of funding, and beg for little or no cuts. Whether its health care providers, substance abuse partners, economic development organizations, or public education, no one wants to sustain cuts and every interest is working hard to protect their funding. The Legislature is the selection committee charged with the responsibility of deciding who gets in the budget (with few cuts) and who is left out (big cuts). Estimates are currently showing upwards of another $6 billion year-to-year deficit facing the Legislature as they craft the 2009-2010 State Appropriations Act.

The primary activity this week is debating measures that could impact next year's budget. Florida is expecting to see a $6.5 billion shortfall for the next fiscal year, although part of that could be offset by federal stimulus dollars. Agencies began to prepare budgets this week by spelling out possible cuts of up to 10 percent to familiarize themselves with doing more with less. And it was not pretty. The Highway Patrol talked about layoffs of troopers.

Of General Interest

Closing a long-standing loophole in the battle over drunken driving and indecent exposure, a measure to allow law enforcement officers to arrest DUI suspects and flashers without actually seeing them drive or expose themselves passed a Senate Committee on Wednesday. Passage came despite concerns by some members, including the committee chairwoman, that the law would violate civil rights. Backed by law enforcement groups, the measure (SB 1428) would in essence eliminate the need for officers to pull over a drunken driver to prove they were actually behind the wheel. Law enforcement officials have complained that they often lack sufficient proof to arrest suspected drunken drivers who are no longer in the vehicle and contend they were not under the influence of alcohol until after they got out of the automobile. For exposure cases, the bill would allow witness testimony to be sufficient for an officer to make an arrest. Opposing but not testifying during the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, were public defenders and civil rights groups. They have opposed similar measures, saying they usurp a defendant's due process rights and can lead to trumped up charges for other legal activity.

Our efforts to safeguard the Division trust fund have been successful so far his session. The weight challenged lady hasn't sung yet, and won't until the last day of the session. Then we start protecting it again for next year.

Benjamin E. Poitevent, Esq.
Attorney & Registered Lobbyist
3491-11 Thomasville Rd. #204,
Tallahassee, Fl. 32309 (850) 443-2951
bpoitevent@msn.com

August 1, 2008
March 14, 2008
February 13, 2008
February 2008
January 17, 2008
February 12, 2007