Bills mandating life sentences for cop killers move to Senate, House floors

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 9/22/21-Rep. Tom Leek, R-Ormond Beach, chair of the House Redistricting Committee talks with the media, Wednesday at the Capitol in Tallahassee. COLIN HACKLEY PHOTO

Companion bills designed to deny convicted cop killers of any chance at freedom in Florida are both one vote from passage in their respective chambers.

Lawmakers in committee Thursday overwhelmingly voted for Senate and House measures (SB 234, HB 175) that would add manslaughter of a police officer to a list of crimes for which life in prison without the possibility of patrol is the mandatory minimum.

The bills would replace statutory language that prohibits forcefully resisting arrest or detention if an officer is making the arrest during the “execution of a legal duty.” The new language would provide that the officer must only be “engaged in the performance of his or her official duties” and cites a separate statute defining what a “law enforcement officer” is.

The bills would also excise a standard of “good faith” on the officer’s part.

For several Democratic lawmakers and citizen rights organizations, those changes and excisions of language have been a repeated point of consternation. Among Florida law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Police Benevolent Association and Florida Police Chiefs Association, they’re a welcome change that would help to eliminate confusion about what people should and shouldn’t do during a stop.

St. Augustine Sen. Tom Leek and Jacksonville Rep. Jessica Baker, Republican lawyers and the legislation’s sponsors, named their bills after 26-year-old Daytona Beach Police Officer Jason Rayner, who was fatally shot in June 2021.

Prosecutors sought a first-degree murder conviction against Rayner’s killer, Othal Wallace, who resisted detainment by Rayner, forced a physical confrontation and in less than 30 seconds shot the officer in the head.

Wallace’s defense called into question the interaction’s legality and whether Rayner had acted in good faith when he approached him. The state presented evidence of Wallace’s hostile disposition toward police, including social media posts in which he glorified violence against officers.

Jurors found Wallace guilty of manslaughter, which carries a maximum 30-year prison sentence when the crime involves a firearm. Community outrage followed, as did legislation last year from Baker and Fort Myers Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin, both former Assistant State Attorneys.

Leek said jurors got “confused” by the law’s existing language, which is included in a Judge’s court instructions, and errantly sentenced Wallace to a lesser sentence. He said his legislation would eliminate future misperceptions.

“This legislation puts determination of who is at fault during a police interaction where it belongs, fully in the hands of the court,” he said. He maintained that the disappearing “good faith” clause would still be a requirement under Florida’s still-in-effect statutes outlining probable cause determinations.

“This statute doesn’t constitute 100% of the law. What we’re doing is clearing up a conflict (in statutes).”

Democratic Sens. Shevrin Jones of Miami Gardens and Rosalind Osgood of Tamarac expressed concerns with the proposed changes and how they could exacerbate the already strained relations Black communities have with police. Both asked Leek to leave the “good faith” requirement in the law.

Leek said doing so would undermine his bill’s intent, but indicated he may find another way to alleviate their worries. Jones and Osgood voted to advance SB 234 through committee, as did fellow Democratic Sens. Kristen Arrington of Kissimmee and Mack Bernard of West Palm Beach.

Jacksonville Democratic Sen. Tracie Davis cast the sole “no” vote against the bill in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee on Thursday.

Earlier that day in the House Judiciary Committee, HB 175 advanced on a 16-3 vote, with Democratic Reps. Bruce Antone of Orlando, LaVon Bracy Davis of Ocoee and Mike Gottlieb of Davie voting against the measure.

Gottlieb, a criminal defense lawyer, proffered an amendment that would have added a line to Baker’s bill to clarify the proposed new statutory language “does not prevent a person from asserting self-defense” as defined in state law.

He asserted that while the proper place to protest an arrest is in a courtroom, without his amendment, the bill’s removal of the “good faith” and “legal duty” standards creates an impression that citizens “might not be able to fight back if a law enforcement officer is being abusive (or) acting outside the scope of their duty.”

He also criticized the Fraternal Order of Police for lobbying directly to his House peers against his amendment without speaking to him about it.

“They don’t mind coming to me when they need benefits or insurance or something like that,” he said. “They don’t like this language because it clarifies a right in statute, (but I) urge you to send a message that this legislative body, that members of this committee, are here to do work for the people, for the safety of Florida.”

Baker asked members of the panel to vote down the amendment. Enough did.

Barney Bishop of the Florida Smart Justice Alliance described the “Officer Jason Rayner Act” as a needed deterrent for violence against cops, the overwhelming share of whom are good actors.

If they aren’t, he said, “Somebody’s around to videotape it. You can videotape it. You can take it to court.”

Aaron Wayt of the Florida Association of Defense Attorneys said Floridians today have “multiple defenses” against excessive, unwarranted force by a police officer, and key to those defenses are the “good faith” and “legal duties” standards.

The “Officer Jason Rayner Act” would erase those protections, he said.

“I’m talking about situations where that officer is acting in bad faith, but as long as they’re performing one of their duties, we — the citizens, us — will not be able to resist with any force under this bill,” he said.

“The words ‘good faith’ are getting removed so the courts, when they interpret jury instructions (and) defenses (will believe) the intent of this Legislature does not require that an officer be acting in good faith. We’re not asking you to put the words ‘good faith’ in; we’re asking you to leave them in. And if we don’t agree that officers should be acting in good faith, then that’s the sound of the canary in the coal mine.”