Guess what? Ignorance of the law *is* an excuse!

[draco664]

Link

Ignorance of the law helped clear Sheriff Jerry Demings' political lobbyist of wrongdoing for handing out gun owners' restricted driver's license photos last year in Tallahassee to lobby against an open-carry law, Orange County sheriff's records show.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not sure the article states what the headline says it states.

There are two issues at heart: The distribution of Drivers License data, and the distribution of Concealed Carry data. The same item, the photos of the individuals.

First, the Drivers License photos. The person cleared was not aware that the photos that were provided to them were drivers license photos. This is not ignorance of the law. This would be the same as accepting stolen goods that you didn't know were stolen; you'd lose the goods as they were returned to the rightful owner, but get in no further trouble. So, in this case, the person might get in trouble if it could be shown that they failed to follow actual procedures, but since the origins of the photos were unknown, he did not knowingly reveal that information, and intent is very important in legal matters.

The second charge, however, is much more serious. The article indicates he knew that he was revealing the identities of individuals with Concealed Carry (CC) permits but that he did not know that doing so is against state law. It is possible that if the sheriff had informed the person who gave him the photos his intent, it was decided that he performed due dilligence by notifying another official of the same office of his need and purpose, and it falls on the other individual (who, in this case received a written reprimand) to not provide the information based on it's purpose. To go back to my goods analogy, it would be like the clerk at the front of the store asking the guy in the distribution center for an item to sell that has a street date restriction, and the distribution guy handing it to the sales guy anyway, despite the fact that he should know that it's not supposed to be sold, yet. The sales guy is not at fault for asking for the item, but the warehouse guy, by the nature of his position, should not have given the item to him.

Finally, this is only the official investigation of the issue, and the civil case regarding the privacy invasion is just barely rolling, so it will be interesting to see how this all falls out.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Some laws include 'knowingly'. Ie, it is illegal to knowingly accept stolen goods. Ignorance of the law is not a defense... unless the law says it is.

[draggar]

Being a Florida resident with a CWP I find this highly disturbing. While I am not a biker, it is still disturbing that LAW ENFORCEMENT is able to use my drivers license photo as propaganda.

IMO ignorance of the law should be no excuse - if I am caught speeding I can't tell the judge "I thought the road had a higher speed limit". I can't take something from a store and say "Oh, I thought it was a free sample".

(Yes, there are extenuating circumstances but the one in the article is NOT one).

As for "ignorance of the law" - it is used often and is acceptable when the law is not a popular one.

[DrFaroohk]

The only time I think you can use ignorance of the law is the law isn't clearly explained *somewhere*. You have speed limit signs to clearly tell you the speed limit. One way you could use ignorance is if you were traveling an area you didn't know, going 55, because the sign back there said it was 55...except some prankster switched it out.

In that case, you are ignorant of that fact, but it is still an excuse.

[jackfaire]

I can't take something from a store and say "Oh, I thought it was a free sample".

(Yes, there are extenuating circumstances but the one in the article is NOT one).

Except the party that used the pictures did not know the source of the photos.

It would be more like someone setting up a table at the store handing you something saying it was a free sample and then you finding out later that the person had no affiliation with the store.

[draco664]

The only time I think you can use ignorance of the law is the law isn't clearly explained *somewhere*. You have speed limit signs to clearly tell you the speed limit. One way you could use ignorance is if you were traveling an area you didn't know, going 55, because the sign back there said it was 55...except some prankster switched it out.

In that case, you are ignorant of that fact, but it is still an excuse.

All right, try and figure out what speed you should be travelling past this sign.

I'm hoping that it's a joke or a 'shop, but for some reason, I suspect it may just be real.

[Andara Bledin]

I'd just go 25 on any school day; always safe that way.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

Most school zone signs I've seen are imposed from 7-3 or so.

[jackfaire]

I'm hoping that it's a joke or a 'shop, but for some reason, I suspect it may just be real.

I have seen that picture of that sign before and the middle sign is a very different shade of white than the other 2 signs. I think this is a joke that a news outlet mistook for being real.

[AdminAssistant]

Most school zone signs I've seen have flashing lights that go off when the lower speed limit is in effect, usually only when students are going to and leaving the school.

[draggar]

Except the party that used the pictures did not know the source of the photos.

It would be more like someone setting up a table at the store handing you something saying it was a free sample and then you finding out later that the person had no affiliation with the store.

Then go after the person who set up the table with the "free samples". When a crime is committed, someone committed the crime and the question is where was it committed? It looks like the crime in the OP was committed when the person who had access to the DMV records took the pictures and handed them to someone else.

I don't think the state of Florida also publishes who has a CWP and who doesn't, mainly for safety reasons and in the courses they stress to NOT brag about your CWP, that you should keep it quiet, too.

Here is the Florida CWP law (it's long):

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...EChapter%20790

Section 790.06 states:

(16) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall maintain statistical information on the number of licenses issued, revoked, suspended, and denied.

So they do have a list of who has one, who had one, and who has been denied (pretty obvious).


Section 790.0601 states:

790.0601 Public records exemption for concealed weapons.—
(1) Personal identifying information of an individual who has applied for or received a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm pursuant to s. 790.06 held by the Division of Licensing of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. This exemption applies to such information held by the division before, on, or after the effective date of this section.
(2) Information made confidential and exempt by this section shall be disclosed:
(a) With the express written consent of the applicant or licensee or his or her legally authorized representative.
(b) By court order upon a showing of good cause.
(c) Upon request by a law enforcement agency in connection with the performance of lawful duties, which shall include access to any automated database containing such information maintained by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The list mentioned in section 790.06 is supposed to be confidential (with the exceptions listed below). I think (b) and (c) do not apply here so unless they have the written permission of the people they used then the person who took this information and handed it to someone without access committed the crime.

IMO someone with access to that information should be fully aware of the law. In my company, even though I don't have (legal) access to external customer information, since I do have access to the computers I have to sign NDA's and go though regular training on customer information privacy etc, and that's just with my company. I'm a little surprised that a government entity doesn't go though this.

[Andara Bledin]

It looks like the crime in the OP was committed when the person who had access to the DMV records took the pictures and handed them to someone else.

The problem here is one of figuring out who did what. Person A asked for photos of a class of people from person B. Person B provided photos to person A. It is possible that neither persons A or B actually committed an offense and it was merely a lack of proper procedures in place or a failure to follow them.

I'm a little surprised that a government entity doesn't go though this.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there weren't procedures to cover this situation. It's also possible that the procedures exist and one or more of the people involved was never adequately trained in them.

^-.-^

[draggar]

The problem here is one of figuring out who did what. Person A asked for photos of a class of people from person B. Person B provided photos to person A. It is possible that neither persons A or B actually committed an offense and it was merely a lack of proper procedures in place or a failure to follow them.

I think it is quite simple. There are people with legal access to the information and people without legal access to the information.

The person who has legal access to the information who handed it to the person without legal access is the one who committed the crime.

The captain handed the list to the lobbyist. This is covered in 790.0601:

(c) Upon request by a law enforcement agency in connection with the performance of lawful duties, which shall include access to any automated database containing such information maintained by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

As far as I know, political agenda is not part of a police officer's "lawful duties". I took a quick look in the Florida law for a definition of "lawful duty" and it is not defined (as far as I can tell) but since "duty" is often defined as a "legal obligation" then it would seem that "lawful duty" would pertain to law enforcement etc.. (for example, researching a crime suspect if they have a CWP or not).

The article states that the 8 photos used were of "outlaw bikers with valid state Carry Concealed Weapon permits". So if the captain was getting the information because they were going to serve a warrant, that is legal, but he handed it to the lobbyist who, as far as I can tell (and I'm sure it would have been mentioned), does not have legal access to this information.

The police captain is the one who broke the law, IMO.