Public Relations & Information

The purpose of Order 573 is to establish how JSO releases information to the public and communicates with the media.

The Public Relations & Information Unit manages public statements, media interviews, official social media accounts, the JSO website, media public-records requests, crime tips, community feedback, marketing, outside partnerships, awards, and the agency organizational chart.

The policy also establishes procedures for serious incidents.

Certain officer-involved shootings, deaths, serious traffic crashes, escapes, hazardous-device incidents, kidnappings, missing-person cases, civil disturbances, and other major events require immediate notification of a Public Information Officer.

Many of these incidents also require an Emergency Alert Radio System broadcast and a public statement.

Before making the public statement, the PIO or commanding officer coordinates with the investigative unit to determine what information may be released.

Generally, the statement includes the time of the incident, the general location, a short description of what occurred, and information about outstanding suspects or vehicles.

Afterwards, the person who made the statement must prepare a written recap of the information released. The recap is required even if no media outlet attends the public statement.

Several outside standards are useful when reviewing this process.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that public agencies should proactively place information of public interest into the public domain and should provide practical and timely access to government information.

Within the United States, Florida public-records law requires public agencies to provide access to nonexempt records and to identify the legal basis when information is withheld. Federal law-enforcement guidance also recognizes that agencies may protect information when disclosure would interfere with an investigation, affect a fair trial, or expose protected information.

Sources: https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2026/119.07 ; https://www.justice.gov/archives/usam/archives/usam-1-7000-media-relations

Therefore, a public-information policy must perform two functions.

It must protect information that cannot lawfully or safely be released.

It must also establish how information that can be released reaches the public.

One of the stronger portions of Order 573 is the amount of structure surrounding serious incidents.

The policy identifies specific events that require immediate notification of a PIO.

This includes officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, serious officer-related crashes, serious injuries or deaths resulting from JSO activity, escapes, certain SWAT incidents, and other significant events.

Because these incidents automatically trigger notification, the decision to involve Public Relations does not depend entirely on whether an individual supervisor considers the incident newsworthy.

The policy also identifies several incidents that require a public statement.

This creates another useful requirement.

For example, an officer-involved shooting is not simply referred to Public Relations for consideration. The policy requires the public-information process to begin.

The information normally included in the public statement is also reasonable.

JSO provides the time, general location, a short description of the incident, and information regarding outstanding suspects or vehicles.

At the same time, the policy restricts information that could interfere with an ongoing investigation.

Officers generally cannot release confessions, test results, witness credibility information, opinions regarding guilt or innocence, identifying information concerning victims or juveniles, or other protected information without authorization.

This is similar to the approach used by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The purpose is not to prevent the public from learning what happened. Instead, the restrictions attempt to prevent an early public statement from affecting the investigation or criminal case.

The written recap requirement is another strength.

Within 30 minutes after a public statement, the PIO or commanding officer must prepare a written recap of the information that was released.

The recap is required even when no members of the media attended.

Because of this, JSO creates a record showing what the agency intended to tell the public at that point in the investigation.

The policy also states that one media outlet cannot receive preferential access to information.

This is useful because the information released through the public-information process should not depend on which news organization is requesting it.

JSO also records its news conferences and uploads them to official social-media platforms.

This creates another record of what JSO said publicly.

Finally, Order 573 requires JSO to gather community input.

Community concerns and suggestions are forwarded to the Public Relations & Information Unit. Afterwards, the agency prepares quarterly Community Progress Reports for the Sheriff.

JSO must also conduct a citizen survey every two years.

The survey measures public opinion regarding JSO's performance, employee competency, employee behavior, community safety, and improvements the agency should consider.

These requirements provide JSO with information that would not necessarily appear in crime statistics or arrest data.

The first problem is that the policy does not clearly explain what happens when JSO releases incorrect information.

Order 573 creates a detailed process for the first public statement.

It identifies who speaks, what information should normally be included, and how that statement is documented afterwards.

However, the policy does not establish a similar procedure for correcting a material factual error.

This becomes important during serious incidents because the first information available to officers may later prove to be incorrect.

The Department of Justice identified this problem during its review of the law-enforcement response to the Uvalde school shooting.

Officials released inaccurate information during the incident and did not promptly correct some of those statements. DOJ later recommended that agencies provide timely and accurate information and openly correct information when the agency discovers that an earlier statement was wrong.

Order 573 does not contain the same requirement.

Because JSO already creates a written recap after each public statement, the agency already has a record that could be used to identify and correct material errors.

The policy also contains more detail about the first public statement than later updates.

After the initial statement is made, Order 573 does not establish how often JSO should update the public as additional facts become available.

This is especially important in officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and other critical incidents.

Order 505 establishes separate transparency requirements for some of these incidents. For example, it contains release targets for officer-involved shooting information and body-worn camera footage.

Order 573 does not clearly connect the public-statement process to those later disclosure requirements.

Therefore, JSO has one policy explaining the initial public communication and another policy explaining later transparency requirements, but the two policies do not clearly establish one continuous process.

Another problem involves the law-enforcement status of an accused person.

Order 573 states that JSO generally will not release whether the accused is a member of a law-enforcement agency unless the investigative unit or a PIO authorizes the release.

Florida law protects several categories of personal information belonging to law-enforcement officers. This includes certain home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, photographs, and other protected information.

However, the fact that a person works for a law-enforcement agency is not generally treated the same way as those personal details.

This does not mean JSO must announce an employee's law-enforcement status in every case.

However, the policy does not explain when that information should be released and when it should be withheld.

This creates additional discretion in cases where the relationship between the accused and law enforcement may itself be important to the public.

Order 505 also states that JSO is committed to proactively releasing information about the arrest of a JSO employee when JSO is the investigating agency.

Because of this, Order 573 and Order 505 should use the same rule.

The media-access section creates another question.

Order 573 states that members of the media who qualify under Florida law may attend press conferences held in secured areas of JSO facilities.

The policy does not identify the statute or explain what qualification is required.

Florida law does contain a definition of a professional journalist in the evidence code. However, that statute concerns a journalist's privilege against compelled disclosure in legal proceedings.

Order 573 does not state whether that is the statute JSO is using.

Therefore, the policy should identify the legal standard instead of requiring the public to determine what JSO means by a person who “qualifies” as media.

This has become more important because journalism is not limited to employees of newspapers and television stations.

Freelance journalists, independent reporters, nonprofit news organizations, and other people may perform the same news-gathering function.

The policy can still impose additional security requirements for access to secured JSO facilities.

However, the standard used to determine who receives that access should be clear.

The official social-media section is also very limited.

Order 573 identifies the platforms JSO uses and allows employees to submit photographs and stories for possible publication.

It does not explain how JSO moderates comments or other public interaction.

The policy does not state when a comment may be removed, when a user may be blocked, who approves those actions, how the decision is documented, or how official social-media records are retained.

This creates both First Amendment and public-records concerns.

Government social-media activity can become state action when an official uses government authority to operate the account. Florida has also recognized that social-media material created or received in connection with official government business may constitute a public record.

Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf ; https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/records-municipal-facebook-page

Because JSO's accounts are official agency accounts, the rules governing those accounts should be written down.

Another weakness involves the community survey.

Order 573 requires a survey every two years, which is useful.

However, the policy only requires the written summary to be sent to the Sheriff.

It does not require JSO to publish the survey, the questionnaire, the methodology, the sample size, or the results.

The COPS Office community-survey model includes additional topics such as procedural justice, community involvement, direct contact with police, and satisfaction with those contacts.

These questions can provide information that a general question regarding JSO's overall performance may not show.

For example, a person may believe that JSO performs well overall but still believe that officers do not treat people fairly during individual encounters.

Order 573 does not clearly require that type of measurement.

The quarterly Community Progress Report creates a similar problem.

Community concerns are collected and analyzed. Afterwards, a report is sent to the Sheriff.

The policy does not require JSO to publish what concerns were identified, what unit was responsible for addressing them, or whether any action was taken.

Therefore, information can move from the community to JSO without the policy requiring information to move back to the community afterwards.

The public-records responsibilities also deserve additional detail.

The Public Relations & Information Unit processes public-records requests submitted by media organizations.

Florida law already requires agencies to respond to lawful public-records requests and identify applicable exemptions.

Order 573 does not establish a deadline, tracking requirement, explanation for delay, or public-records performance measure for the requests handled by the unit.

These requirements may exist elsewhere within JSO.

However, they are not contained in the Public Relations policy.

Finally, the unit has two different types of responsibilities.

The unit releases public information and handles media relations.

The same unit also develops marketing strategies, manages the JSO brand, promotes agency programs, and oversees awards recognizing exceptional work.

These functions can exist within the same office.

However, the goals are not always identical.

Marketing is intended to present the agency and its programs to the public.

Public information is intended to provide accurate information about the agency and its actions.

Order 573 begins by stating that one purpose of the unit is to ensure “consistency in messaging.”

The policy does not state that information should be withheld to protect JSO's reputation.

However, it also does not clearly state what happens when consistent messaging or agency promotion conflicts with the release of accurate information that may reflect poorly on JSO.

The first change could be to add a correction procedure.

When JSO discovers that a material fact contained in an earlier public statement was incorrect, the PIO could be required to issue a correction.

The correction could identify the incorrect information, provide the corrected information, and update the same platforms where the original statement was published.

The original statement would not need to be deleted.

Instead, the correction could remain attached to it so that the public can see both the original information and the later change.

The written recap already required by Order 573 could be used as the starting point for this process.

This would follow the type of correction practice recommended by the Department of Justice after its review of the Uvalde response.

The policy could also establish follow-up requirements after the first statement.

A public statement could explain that the information is preliminary and may change.

Afterwards, JSO could provide additional updates when major facts are confirmed, when the investigative status changes, or when another transparency deadline is reached.

Order 573 could also directly reference the requirements in Order 505.

This would make the initial public statement and the later transparency releases part of the same process.

The rule concerning an accused person's law-enforcement status could also be clarified.

Instead of requiring permission each time, JSO could establish when employment with JSO or another law-enforcement agency will normally be disclosed.

If the information must temporarily be withheld because of an investigation or another legal reason, that reason could be documented.

The media-access section could identify the exact legal standard used to determine who qualifies for access to secured press conferences.

The policy could also explain how independent and freelance journalists are evaluated.

Access to secured facilities could still depend on reasonable identification and security requirements.

The standard would simply be known in advance.

The policy could also identify the rights of journalists and members of the public who remain outside secured areas.

The Eleventh Circuit has recognized a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable restrictions, to photograph and record police activity occurring on public property.

Order 573 could either state that rule directly or reference another JSO order that already governs public recording.

The social-media section could also be expanded.

JSO could establish written rules for removing comments, blocking accounts, preserving official posts, documenting moderation decisions, correcting inaccurate posts, and retaining social-media records.

The policy could identify who is authorized to make those decisions and what review is available when a user is blocked.

Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf ; https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/records-municipal-facebook-page

The citizen-survey requirements could also be expanded.

The survey could include questions regarding procedural justice, treatment during direct contact with officers, satisfaction after police encounters, and confidence in the complaint process.

Afterwards, JSO could publish the questionnaire, methodology, sample size, aggregate results, and written summary.

The same approach could be used for the quarterly Community Progress Reports.

JSO could publish a summary identifying the major concerns received from the community, the units responsible for addressing them, what actions were taken, and which concerns remain unresolved.

Sensitive information and identifying information could still be removed before publication.

Finally, the policy could establish the purpose of the public-information function more clearly.

The unit can continue managing marketing, agency programs, and awards.

However, the policy could state that public-information decisions are based on accuracy, legal requirements, investigative needs, and timely disclosure rather than whether the information is favorable to JSO.

This would make the purpose of the public-information function different from the purpose of the agency's marketing function even when both are managed by the same unit.

Order 573 contains a detailed process for releasing the first information about many serious incidents.

The PIO is notified. An EARS broadcast may be issued. A public statement is scheduled. Investigators determine what information can be released. Afterwards, the statement is documented in writing.

This provides more structure than allowing each officer or supervisor to decide independently how information should be released.

The main concern is what happens after that first statement.

The policy does not clearly require JSO to correct an inaccurate statement.

It does not establish regular follow-up requirements.

It does not directly connect the initial statement to the later transparency requirements in Order 505.

Because of this, the first public statement is more clearly regulated than the continuing flow of information after the incident.

The same pattern appears in the community-input section.

JSO collects community concerns and survey responses.

Afterwards, the information is sent upward through the agency.

The policy does not require the results to be sent back outward to the community.

Therefore, Order 573 creates procedures for receiving information from the public without always creating the same procedures for showing the public what JSO learned from that information.

The social-media section is even less developed.

JSO identifies the official accounts, but the policy does not explain how those government-controlled spaces are moderated or preserved.

This is important because social media is now one of the main ways JSO communicates directly with the public.

Finally, the responsibilities of the unit should be considered together.

The Public Relations & Information Unit is responsible for releasing information about shootings, deaths, investigations, and other serious incidents.

The same unit also markets JSO programs, manages the agency's brand, and recognizes positive accomplishments.

The policy does not establish that these promotional responsibilities have affected the information JSO releases.

However, the policy should still make clear that the public-information function is not the same as the marketing function.

The records created under Order 573 would help determine how the policy operates in practice.

EARS broadcasts and written recaps would show what JSO initially told the public. Later statements could show whether incorrect information was corrected. Public-records logs could show how quickly media requests were processed. Social-media moderation records could show when comments or users were removed. Citizen surveys and quarterly Community Progress Reports could show what concerns JSO received and what happened afterwards.

These records would allow the public to compare the procedure described in Order 573 with the information JSO actually releases.