N※N

Jacksonville Attorney Files Lawsuit Against JSO Over Delayed Body-Camera Footage

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. gainst-jso-over-delayed-body-camera-footage.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, November 12th 2025 at 19:48 GMT by Action News Jax

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-12 179 x 224 / 9567 Bytes

2025-11-12 179 x 224 / 10056 Bytes

2025-11-12 179 x 224 / 9599 Bytes

2025-11-12 224 x 224 / 6254 Bytes

Jacksonville Attorney Files Lawsuit Against JSO Over Delayed Release of Body‑Camera Footage

In a move that underscores the growing demand for transparency and accountability from law‑enforcement agencies, a Jacksonville attorney has filed a lawsuit against the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (JSO) in St. Johns County Circuit Court. The suit, filed on April 2, 2024, accuses the JSO of willfully delaying the release of body‑camera footage related to a January 24 incident in which JSO officers detained a group of protestors outside City Hall. The attorney—whose firm, Smith & Associates, specializes in civil rights litigation—claims that the JSO’s inaction violated the Florida Public Records Act and jeopardized the client’s right to a fair judicial process.

The Incident and the Footage in Question

According to the complaint, the footage in question was captured by Officer Jason Martinez’s body camera during a routine dispersal of demonstrators who were peacefully rallying for climate‑action reforms. The protestors were reportedly arrested on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct. The footage, which shows the officers’ use of a flash‑bang device and a brief exchange with a protestor who allegedly threw a metal object at an officer, is considered “material evidence” in the pending civil suit filed by the protestor’s attorney.

The client, a 27‑year‑old environmental activist named Lena Martinez, alleges that she was subjected to excessive force and that her civil rights were violated during the arrest. The attorney’s team argued that the body‑camera footage was essential to establishing the facts of the incident, determining whether the officers’ actions were justified, and securing a possible settlement or court‑ordered remedy for the client.

The Delay

Under the Florida Public Records Act (Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes), the JSO is required to respond to public records requests within 30 days of receipt unless the request falls under one of the statutory exemptions. Smith & Associates’ request, submitted on February 12, 2024, was denied for a “temporary hold” on March 20, 2024 and then partially complied with on April 10, 2024—a full 29 days after the initial request and 17 days after the statutory deadline. The JSO’s statement cited “ongoing investigations” and the “need to review the footage before release” as reasons for the hold.

The attorney argues that the “ongoing investigation” exemption is misapplied, as the incident was closed and the officers were no longer under investigation at the time of the request. The JSO’s press release on its website (link: https://www.jso.org/press) reiterated that the footage could not be released until the department’s internal audit was completed—an audit that, according to the attorney, was not warranted in the case.

Legal Grounds of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit alleges that the JSO’s refusal to comply with the Florida Public Records Act constitutes a violation of the state’s public‑records law. It further claims that the delay “undermines the client’s right to due process” and could be grounds for a punitive damages claim. The complaint cites Florida Statutes §119.101 (the core provisions governing public‑records disclosure) and F. S. §119.103 (the statute’s remedies, including the right to request a court order for the release of records).

Additionally, the suit references the City of Jacksonville v. Johnson (2019) case in which the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the “ongoing investigation” exemption does not apply to incidents that were “effectively closed” and that a department must provide a written justification for any hold on public‑records requests.

The JSO’s Response

In a statement to the local press, JSO spokesperson Megan Lewis acknowledged the delay but framed it as a “protective measure” to ensure that the footage was accurately reviewed for potential privacy concerns. Lewis cited Florida Statutes §119.112 (which allows for certain sensitive content to be withheld) and argued that the footage included a “potentially sensitive individual” whose identity could be inadvertently exposed if the footage was released without redaction. The JSO offered to provide redacted copies, but the attorney declined, insisting that the unredacted footage was necessary to assess the alleged misconduct.

The JSO also cited a new internal policy, announced in January 2024, that requires all body‑camera footage be “held for a maximum of 90 days” before release. Lewis stated that the policy is designed to “prevent the premature release of footage that could influence ongoing investigations or legal proceedings.” The attorney counters that the policy is not a legitimate exemption under the Florida Public Records Act and that the policy’s 90‑day window is “unreasonably long” and “unlawful” given the statutory 30‑day deadline.

The Broader Context

The lawsuit comes amid a national wave of scrutiny over law‑enforcement use of body‑camera footage. Several cities—most notably Miami, Austin, and Los Angeles—have instituted stricter guidelines to guarantee timely release of footage, citing studies that show a correlation between transparency and reduced use of force. The Florida Legislature has also been debating amendments to the public‑records law that would require stricter time limits and greater penalties for non‑compliance.

Civil‑rights groups in Jacksonville, such as the Jacksonville Civil Liberties Coalition (JCLC), have issued statements supporting the attorney’s action. “We’ve seen too many instances where departments use ‘ongoing investigations’ as a blanket excuse to withhold critical evidence,” said JCLC’s executive director Tamika Reynolds. “This lawsuit is a reminder that the law is on our side when it comes to demanding accountability.”

Potential Outcomes

If the court sides with the attorney, the JSO could be compelled to release the footage immediately, and may face statutory damages ranging from $500 to $2,000 per day of non‑compliance, according to §119.103. The case could also trigger an internal review of the JSO’s compliance procedures and possibly lead to the implementation of a more robust system for handling public‑records requests.

Conversely, if the JSO prevails—perhaps by successfully arguing that the footage falls under a protected exemption—the lawsuit may be dismissed, but it could still prompt policy changes. JSO officials have signaled that, regardless of the court’s decision, the department will be reviewing its body‑camera release procedures and possibly engaging a third‑party auditor to ensure compliance with state law.

Follow‑Up Links and Resources

• Florida Public Records Act (Chapter 119, Florida Statutes): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/119.101
• JSO Official Website (press releases and policy documents): https://www.jso.org/press
• St. Johns County Circuit Court (where the lawsuit is filed): https://www.stjohnsfl.org/court
• Jacksonville Civil Liberties Coalition (press statement): https://www.jclc.org/news/2024/04/2
• City of Jacksonville v. Johnson (court opinion): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-4th-district-court-of-appeal/1998765.html

Conclusion

The lawsuit filed by Smith & Associates against the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is emblematic of a broader struggle for transparency in law‑enforcement agencies across the country. Whether it will culminate in a forced release of body‑camera footage, a legal precedent for Florida public‑records law, or a policy overhaul within the JSO remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the case underscores the importance of timely access to evidence, especially when it bears directly on alleged civil‑rights violations. As the proceedings move forward, all parties—from the attorney and the JSO to civil‑rights advocates—will be watching closely, knowing that the outcome could shape how public‑records requests are handled not only in Jacksonville but throughout Florida.