We are not putting C.C. in the spotlight.
We use his initials because our concern is how the story was told, and what happens to a person when a label is added to it. He is already dealing with serious allegations. We do not need to add another layer of public attention to his name. His name is replaced with initials in the quoted text below. The video keeps the original audio so you can hear the words for yourself.

“By the way, [C.C.]’s also a registered sex offender.”

Tom Rizzo, a co-host and analyst on On Patrol: Live, made that statement during an August 22, 2026, segment about a Marion County police pursuit. It only took a few seconds to say. But I kept coming back to those words: by the way. Did the audience need that information at that moment? What did it explain about the alleged theft?

Please watch the video below and hear for yourself.
Listen to the way Rizzo says it, including his pause and emphasis. You can decide how it comes across. My question is why the label needed to be added when the story already described serious allegations.

The clip includes the introduction and the surrounding context, with Rizzo’s original voice and delivery.

Serious allegations already existed

According to published coverage of the incident, C.C. faced charges of grand theft, fleeing and eluding, and resisting arrest after an August 1 pursuit involving a reportedly stolen Nissan Altima. Those reports did not identify a new sexual offense or explain how his registration status related to the alleged theft.

The person whose car was reportedly taken deserves answers. The officers and everyone nearby deserve safety. C.C. also deserves to have the current allegations judged on the evidence. Those responsibilities can exist together. Compassion does not require us to overlook what someone is accused of doing.

Rizzo does not explicitly say the label makes C.C. more dangerous. But I worry about what a viewer may hear in that added detail: another reason to fear him, another reason to assume the worst. Something can be factually true and still need an explanation of why it belongs in the story.

One incident, different editorial choices

Coverage of the same arrest shows that including the label was a choice:

• WKMG, August 5:
  Its report about the stolen-car pursuit included registration status near the end, attributing it to deputies.
• KFOX14, August 4:
  Its headline began, “Florida sex offender steals car,” although the body described allegations.
• Hoodline, August 5:
  Its headline about the chase also led with registration status.
• Ocala-News, August 6:
  Its account of the incident described the alleged theft, pursuit, helicopter tracking, stop sticks, and K-9 apprehension without mentioning registration status.

The Ocala-News account gave readers enough information to understand what allegedly happened without adding registration status. This is one incident, but the comparison makes the editorial choice clear.

What could this do to a defense?

Imagine trying to prepare a defense while a television clip is already telling strangers how to see you. A prospective juror might remember “the sex offender” more clearly than the actual allegations. A potential witness might see the coverage and begin making assumptions about your character before hearing your account. That is a concern worth taking seriously.

The attention can reach far beyond a courtroom. An employer or landlord may encounter the clip months later. Relatives may have to answer questions they never asked to face. A child, if the person has one, may hear an adult’s label repeated at school. Even when a case changes, the first headline can keep circulating. A family can be left carrying the weight of a story that has moved on for everyone else.

We do not know whether this broadcast affected C.C.’s defense or caused any of those harms. I am asking broadcasters to consider those possibilities before adding information that may follow someone for years.

Florida’s evidence law, section 90.404, generally restricts character evidence used to prove someone acted in conformity with that character. It also prohibits other-crimes evidence when relevant solely to show bad character or propensity, while providing permitted uses and exceptions. This courtroom rule does not prohibit television coverage. It does illustrate why a past offense is not automatically evidence of a new allegation.

FDLE makes a related distinction on its public registry: placement in the database is not intended to indicate the level of risk a particular person presents to others. Registration status alone does not establish an additional danger during a pursuit.

How an unrelated arrest can become a recidivism number

A theft arrest can count as general recidivism in research measuring rearrest for any crime, if the person meets that study’s population and follow-up criteria. It does not thereby become sexual recidivism. Studies measuring reconviction or return to prison use different outcomes. An arrest is not a conviction.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ nine-year study, published in 2019, demonstrates the distinction. It followed prisoners released in 2005 across 30 states through 2014. Among those whose most serious imprisonment offense was rape or sexual assault, approximately 67% were rearrested for any crime, while 7.7% were rearrested for rape or sexual assault.

Those figures describe different outcomes within a specific prison-release population. They are not estimates for every person currently on a registry. Calling the broader figure “sex-offender recidivism” without explaining what was counted can leave audiences believing it measures new sexual crimes.

A person’s classification and the nature of a later allegation are separate facts. Accurate reporting should keep them separate. We cannot establish from this segment whether C.C.’s arrest will enter any particular research dataset.

Visible on camera, but given a voice?

I also think about the people watching at home who share that label. They may be getting ready for work, helping a child with homework, or trying to hold their lives together. When do viewers get to hear those stories? When do people on the registry get room to speak about rebuilding a life, instead of being introduced through an arrest?

There are exceptions. PBS’s FIRSTHAND episode featuring Paul gave a person on the registry room to discuss relationships, faith, and stigma. That matters. Police shows are not the only place these stories appear, and we have not counted enough coverage to say how the airtime is divided. But this example shows that television can make room for a person to be heard.

An arrest clip gives us one encounter in one person’s life. It cannot tell us who every person on the registry is. The public needs room to hear about accountability, change, family, and the work of starting over, too.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code calls for context, avoiding stereotypes, and balancing public interest against potential harm. It also distinguishes legal access to information from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast it.

Before adding “by the way,” please consider the person who will have to live with those words. If registration status is relevant, explain the connection. If someone is accused of taking a car, report the evidence and the allegations carefully. Leave room for a fair defense, and remember the people around the accused who may feel the consequences of the coverage.

A label should never do the work that evidence is supposed to do.