After ‘Officer Jason Raynor Act’ dies near finish line, its sponsors disagree on who killed it

As the Legislature’s Regular Session drew to a close, a seemingly minor disagreement over four words spelled the end for a bill that would have mandated life sentences without parole for defendants convicted of manslaughter in the death of a police officer.

Now weeks after the “Officer Jason Raynor Act” died, its sponsors are still at odds over who killed it.

The bill (SB 234) died in House messages May 2, leaving its supporters and Republican sponsors — Sen. Tom Leek of Ormond Beach and Rep. Jessica Baker of Jacksonville — frustrated over what they described as a breakdown in bicameral collaboration.

The legislation, named for Daytona Beach Police officer Jason Raynor, who was fatally shot in 2021 by a man who resisted arrest, sailed through its committee stops with little opposition, as did its analog in the House.

It would have clarified that no person can use violence or threaten violence to resist an officer “engaged in the performance of his or her duties.” The change is necessary, Baker explained, because “jurors can get confused” when interpreting the law and defense lawyers have used that confusion to secure lighter sentences for their clients.

In early April, Leek amended the bill to include and define a “good faith” standard for police conduct during arrest and detainment situations. It came at the request of the Senate Black Caucus, which raised concerns that removing the standard could expose communities of color to unchecked police power.

The Senate passed the updated version 37-0 on April 2. More than three weeks later, on April 29, the House approved the measure 116-0. But ahead of the vote, Baker amended the language governing arrests, replacing a reference to a “lawful or an unlawful” arrest with one that referenced “any” arrest.

The difference, on the surface, appeared negligible. In the same way that a person saying they like colors that are blue and not blue is the same as saying they like any or all colors, referring to both lawful and unlawful arrests can generally be interpreted as referring to any or all arrests.

Baker told Florida Politics that the change merely mirrored language she had negotiated with Democrats and the former House Judiciary Committee Chair when she carried the measure in the 2024 Session. And it was in her House bill (HB 175) this year.

“To me, it wasn’t a big deal of a change,” Baker said. “It just makes it clearer. It was language that was already in the bill.”

But when the amended version of SB 234 arrived back in the Senate later that day, Leek balked. With support from the chamber, he sent the bill back April 30 with a request that the House concur with the prior Senate language. He argued on the floor that Baker’s amendment was due more to her being resentful about not being involved in the “good faith” change than about tightening the bill’s text.

Baker, on May 1, insisted on the amendment and warned repeated bouncing would “kill this good bill for the second year in a row.”

Leek blamed a lack of cross-rotunda communication. He said her “any arrest” phrasing was introduced on third reading without prior committee vetting. That’s true on the Senate side but not in the House, where Baker introduced HB 175 with that exact language.

“It just makes it clearer,” Baker said. “It was not a surprise.”

Leek told Florida Politics that the question of whether there’s a real difference between “lawful or unlawful” and “any” is not a settled issue.

“Whether you think it was innocuous or substantive, not everyone agreed,” he said. “We know (the language of the Senate version is) supported by the Florida Sheriff’s Association, all law enforcement, the state prosecutors and every one of the stakeholders who had advised the House sponsor not to disrupt anything. And for whatever reason, the House sponsor decided to go ahead and do that against the advice of everybody.”

He added that if there wasn’t any real difference between “lawful or unlawful” and “any,” then Baker insisting on the change in the 11th hour of Session needlessly imperiled the legislation, noting that SB 234 “sat in House messages” for “a long time” before the lower chamber took it up on the floor.

“If it’s innocuous, don’t do it,” he said. “And if it is substantive, why would you wait to the very last second to do it?”

On Friday, May 2, with hours remaining before adjournment, the Senate — at Leek’s request — formally refused to concur with the House amendment and bounced the bill back to the House for a third time with a request to remove Baker’s language.

But procedural rules prevented the House from sending the bill back a fourth time, and without Senate concurrence, SB 234 died in messages — indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration.

Baker blamed Leek’s decision to “performatively” bounce the bill as a House-rule violation for the measure’s demise.

“He ultimately killed the bill in the Senate by not concurring,” she said.

Supporters — including Miami Rep. Ashley Gantt, Tamarac Sen. Rosalind Osgood and former Senate Democratic Leader Jason Pizzo — had praised the bipartisan tweaks and urged the two chambers to unite behind the measure.

“The policy that was in the original language in the bill, that the Senate changed, is good policy for Florida,” Gantt said in March. “I am very honored to applaud you, support you and say, ‘You go, Baker.’”

Pizzo, who last week confirmed he’s running for Governor as an independent, said Leek was “incredibly magnanimous” when he considered the Black Caucus’ concerns “at perhaps an inconvenient time” and made the “good faith” change.

“You did the right thing, sir,” Pizzo said.

Leek, who took up the legislation that Fort Myers Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin carried last year with Baker, said he plans to refile the measure for next year, “get the bill through the Senate and then work as close as we can with the Governor to get it signed.”

“I want to do what’s right for the Raynor family,” he said.

Asked whether he wanted to work with Baker on the bill again, Leek demurred.

“I’m not going to opine on that,” he said.

Baker, meanwhile, said she has “every intention of filing the bill again — with Leek’s “good faith” language.

Because that’s how everyone voted on it,” she said.

As for working with Leek again on the legislation next year, Baker said she hopes to “continue to have that conversation” and “come to a mutual understanding that he had compromises and so did I.”

“And if it’s not a big, substantive change, my way to his way,” she said, “then hopefully he can understand where I’m coming from and we can move forward with a solid bill that’s the same on both sides.”