The Government Can’t Keep You in the Dark

A recent decision from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has an important message for Florida’s counties: public records requests are not suggestions. And when the information is necessary to comply with a criminal law, “we’ll get around to it” isn’t good enough.

During the first week of June 2026, the Florida Action Committee submitted Public Records Act requests to all 67 Florida counties. We did this for a very specific reason. On July 1, 2026, a new law was to take effect that revised the prohibition on specified offenders “loitering” within 500 feet of a place where children congregate. The law creates yet another potential criminal minefield for the approximately 90,000 people on Florida’s registry — and potentially for others subject to Florida’s registration laws who travel to the state.

But here’s the problem: Where are these “places where children congregate”? If the government is going to criminalize being within 500 feet of a location, people should at least be able to determine where those locations are.

So FAC asked the counties. Nearly three months later (and after the new law has been in effect for almost two months) FAC has received responses from fewer than half of Florida’s 67 counties. And even among the counties that responded, most told us that they have no records identifying these locations.

That brings us to a very interesting decision issued last week by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in Chandler v. St. Peter’s Academy, Inc.. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded a public-records dispute and addressed the obligation of public-records custodians to respond promptly to requests.

The court emphasized a fundamental principle of Florida’s Public Records Act: public records are not something a government agency gets to decide whether or not to provide at its convenience. As the court explained, Florida’s Constitution gives every person the right to inspect or copy public records, and the Public Records Act requires custodians to acknowledge requests “promptly” and respond in good faith. The court reiterated that an unjustified delay in producing records is itself a violation of the Act. The court also made an important point: the Public Records Act places the duty to promptly acknowledge and respond on the government agency—not on the person making the request.

So what exactly is an “unjustified delay”?

That’s a question worth asking when the government has enacted a law that can put someone in criminal jeopardy. If a new law is scheduled to take effect in a month and makes it potentially criminal to come within a specified distance of certain locations, is waiting three months or longer to provide information identifying those locations a justified delay? If someone plans to attend an event two months from now and needs to know whether attending could subject them to arrest, is it unreasonable to expect the government to provide the information before the event?

We don’t think such requests are unreasonable. In fact, we think the fact that half the Counties have not responded yet – months later – is pretty glaringly unreasonable, considering people can be arrested over this stuff.

Merriam-Webster defines “promptly” as “without delay” and “very quickly or immediately.” This isn’t FAC being petty. It isn’t FAC demanding that county employees drop everything to answer our requests instantly. This is about due process and the ability to know what the law requires before you accidentally violate it.

Florida has created an ever-expanding web of geographic restrictions for people on the registry. The government tells registrants where they cannot even “loiter” within. But if the government itself cannot — or will not — tell people where those prohibited locations are, how exactly is a person supposed to comply? A criminal law should not function like a game of Where’s Waldo?

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse” cuts both ways. If registrants can’t claim it when violating a presence ban, the government should not be allowed to claim it when thumbing their noses at our public information act requests.