I. Introduction and Summary of Argument

The Florida Access Security Matrix ("ASM"), adopted through Administrative Order AOSC24-65, has produced unintended consequences that raise constitutional concerns. Specifically, the Matrix's implementation may create inconsistencies across Florida's 67 counties and inadvertently condition access to court records on a litigant's ability to afford legal representation.

Some county clerks across Florida have interpreted the ASM in ways that may conceal exculpatory evidence and prior adjudicated facts from respondents accused of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and/or Stalking. This practice has potentially opened the door for abuse of process and denial of constitutional rights never contemplated by the Legislature or the Florida Supreme Court.

For domestic violence injunction cases classified as "before service," the Matrix assigns drastically different access levels based solely on whether the respondent has retained counsel:

User Role	Access Level	Actual Access Granted
User Role 3: Attorneys of Record	Level B	"All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S., or sealed by court order" (Full access to all case documents, allegations, and filings)
User Role 4: Parties (Pro Se)	Level G	"Case number only" (No access to allegations, documents, or any substantive information)

Scenario:

1. A petitioner files for relief under any one of the aforementioned causes.
2. That petition is either denied or dismissed prior to hearing.
3. Clerk refrains from service since no hearing was set.
4. Case file remains in perpetual "confidential before service" status as contemplated by the ASM.
5. Petitioner files subsequently under the same or different statutes and includes the same, similar or overlapping descriptions of events.
6. Subsequent attempt for relief moves forward with either a temporary injunction or notice of hearing.
7. The accuser, the court, and the clerk all possess and consider documentation, evidence, and knowledge that is not available to the accused.
8. If the accused comes into knowledge that a prior case file regarding the same material facts exists, he or she is denied access to the potentially exculpatory evidence, prior statements under oath, and a full understanding of what is before the court.
9. According to the ASM, only if the accused can afford an attorney, can he potentially gain access to the prior secret case file.
10. Some Clerks deny access citing the ASM while others grant access citing an absolute or statutory right to access one's own case file.
11. The definition of the term "Confidential" is in question.

This practice of denying a respondent in such circumstances access to prior case files is being deployed inconsistently across the state. This website documents these inconsistencies and provides concrete data regarding county-by-county variations in practice.

Even more striking is that the ASM on its face assigns different access levels to attorneys of record (Level B—full access to case documents) and parties (Level G—case number only) for domestic violence injunction cases that are in the "confidential before service" status. According to the ASM, a represented party can gain access to prior case history where a pro se party is denied the same access.

Finally, a significant number of Florida county clerks have independently developed "Waiver of Return Hearing" forms that directly conflict with the mandatory hearing and service language in Florida Statutes §§ 741.30(4), 784.046(5), and 784.0485(4). These forms appear to have proliferated without uniform review or authorization, and their continued use raises questions about alignment with legislative intent.

II. Statement of Facts

A. The Access Security Matrix Framework

The Florida Supreme Court adopted the current Access Security Matrix in Administrative Order AOSC24-65, effective September 16, 2024. The Matrix establishes graduated levels of electronic access to court records based on user roles and case types.

The restricted-access provisions for domestic-violence injunctions before service are said to serve an important protective purpose: preventing respondents from learning of a petition before law enforcement can safely effectuate service of any temporary injunction. See Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(j) (creating a public-records exemption for injunction petitions until the respondent is served). Although this interpretation of legislative intent remains unadjudicated, this reasoning is being repeated by county clerks and court personnel and appears in Supreme Court training materials distributed to county clerks.

Concurrently, when a petition is dismissed sua sponte or denied outright, no hearing is set. The governing statutory framework requires that the petition "shall" be served prior to the scheduled hearing. When trial courts decline to set a hearing—contrary to the statutory mandate that, upon filing of the petition, hearings be scheduled for "the earliest possible time"—some county clerks interpret this to mean that no service is required at all. As a result, these cases remain permanently classified as "Confidential — Before Service."

This practice produces a substantial class of case files that effectively never leave restricted status. Although Chapter 119 contemplates the public's right of access, clerks and local judicial authorities have relied on this untested interpretation to implement a system that creates a concealed, permanent "shadow docket" of unserved allegations against the accused.

B. The Access Disparity Between Attorneys and Pro Se Parties

Under the current Matrix, for "DR Violence Injunctions (all) Before Service," access is allocated as follows:

User Role	Access Level	Actual Access Granted
Attorneys of Record (User Role 3)	Level B	Full access to all case documents, allegations, and filings
Parties (User Role 4)	Level G	Case number only (no access to allegations, documents, or substantive information)

Because attorneys access case files on behalf of their clients, represented parties effectively receive Level B access to these prior case files, while pro se parties receive only Level G access to the same information. This distinction may create an unintended disparity where a party's access to their own case depends on their ability to retain counsel.

Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(b)(4) defines "Confidential" as information "exempt from the public right of access under article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution and may be released only to the persons or organizations designated by law, statute, or court order." Notably, this definition contemplates release to designated persons—it appears to restrict public access rather than necessarily restricting party access. This distinction may warrant clarification regarding when named parties fall within authorized categories for access. Many county clerks throughout the State have interpreted the definition of "Confidential" as secret from the public AND the parties. At least one Clerk claims that respondents have no right of access because they are "Not Parties" until served.

C. Inconsistent County Implementation

Public records requests submitted to Florida's sixty-seven counties and documented on this project website reveal significant variations in how clerks interpret and apply the Matrix and related statutes. Among documented examples:

Clay County: Interprets the Matrix to allow respondents access to prior dismissed cases after the case has been closed and dispositioned.

Hamilton County: Grants respondents access to prior case files upon proof of identity, with appropriate redactions for safety.

St. Johns County: Allows parties—including respondents—to access and obtain copies of dismissed or denied injunction case files, restoring party access once the petition is no longer pending.

Alachua County: Denies respondent access entirely, taking the position that unserved respondents are not "parties" to cases in which they are named.

Pinellas County: States in official procedures that respondents cannot obtain copies of injunction files if denied without a return hearing, and that such cases remain in "locked status."

Brevard County: Denies respondents access to dismissed or denied injunction case files indefinitely and takes proactive steps to conceal all information associated with the prior case file.

These varying interpretations suggest that the Matrix and accompanying guidance may benefit from clarification to ensure uniform application across all counties. Respondents should not have different access rights to their own case files depending on geographic location.

D. "Waiver of Return Hearing" Forms

Public records requests have identified that a significant percentage of Florida counties distribute forms allowing petitioners to waive the return hearing if temporary relief is not granted. For example, Pinellas County's form states:

"I understand that if the judge does not impose a temporary injunction, I may waive my right to a return hearing and the respondent will not be served with the petition or notice of hearing."

The Pinellas County DV Manual Quick Reference (Page 7) confirms: "If the judge denies the injunction without a return hearing, the respondent cannot get copies of the injunction. The case remains in a locked status."

These forms raise questions about consistency with the mandatory language in Florida's injunction statutes:

§ 741.30(4), Fla. Stat. (Domestic Violence): "Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time. The respondent shall be personally served..."

§ 784.046(5), Fla. Stat. (Repeat Violence, Sexual Violence, Dating Violence): "Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing... The respondent shall be personally served..."

§ 784.0485(4), Fla. Stat. (Stalking): "Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing... The respondent shall be personally served..."

The Legislature used identical mandatory language across all injunction types. Whether these waiver forms align with legislative intent, or whether they serve legitimate judicial efficiency purposes that the Legislature implicitly authorized, may warrant clarification.

E. Potential for Misuse Under Current Implementation

The combination of the access disparity and waiver form practices may create unintended opportunities for misuse:

1. A petitioner files an injunction petition.
2. The court denies temporary relief.
3. The petitioner uses a waiver form to dismiss without service.
4. The case is dismissed; the respondent never learns of the petition.
5. The clerk treats the dismissed case as perpetually confidential.
6. The petitioner may file subsequent petitions, potentially before different judges, with the respondent having no access to prior filings.

This sequence may prevent respondents from establishing defenses based on prior adjudications, detecting patterns, or impeaching credibility with prior inconsistent statements—defenses that represented respondents could access through their attorneys' Level B access.

III. Legal Argument

A. Equal Protection Concerns

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const.

The United States Supreme Court has held that conditioning access to courts on ability to pay raises significant equal protection concerns:

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956): States may not deny appellate review to defendants who cannot afford transcripts.

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996): States may not condition appeals involving fundamental rights on ability to pay fees.

The current Matrix creates a situation where represented parties effectively receive Level B access (through their attorneys), while pro se parties receive only Level G access to the same case information. This distinction conditions meaningful access on ability to retain counsel.

This disparity may not have been contemplated when the Matrix was adopted, and clarification ensuring equal party access—regardless of representation status—would address these equal protection concerns.

B. Due Process Concerns

The Due Process Clause guarantees that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. Fundamental to due process is the right to know accusations and to mount a meaningful defense. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948).

When respondents cannot access prior case files involving the same parties and similar allegations, they may be unable to:

1. Establish res judicata or collateral estoppel based on prior adjudications;
2. Impeach with prior inconsistent statements;
3. Demonstrate patterns suggesting abuse of process;
4. Present evidence that allegations have previously been rejected;
5. Access evidence that may have been attached to the prior petition;
6. Know the entirety of allegations that are before the court.

These are fundamental aspects of a meaningful defense. To the extent the current implementation denies these tools to pro se respondents while represented respondents can access them through counsel, due process concerns arise.

C. Concerns Regarding Transparency and Fairness

American jurisprudence has long recognized the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 268-70 (1948) (discussing historical rejection of secret proceedings and importance of public trials to ensuring fairness).

The current implementation may create situations where proceedings effectively occur without the knowledge of one party:

1. Allegations are filed in court;
2. A judge reviews and rules on those allegations;
3. The case is dismissed without service;
4. The accused party never learns the proceeding occurred;
5. The case file remains permanently inaccessible to the accused;
6. Secret case file is used against the accused in future matters.

While the legitimate safety concerns underlying pre-service confidentiality provisions are recognized, once a case is dispositioned ex parte, continued denial of party access raises concerns.

D. Florida's Constitutional Guarantee of Access to Courts

Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution provides: "The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay."

The Florida Supreme Court's Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability has recognized that "Access to the courts is an explicit right of the people, guaranteed to all litigants and not reserved to those represented by an attorney."

Meaningful access requires not merely the ability to file documents, but access to information necessary to prepare a defense. See Nelson Tree Serv., Inc. v. Gray, 978 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (injunction respondents must receive meaningful opportunity to prepare and defend). A respondent who cannot access their own case file while opposing counsel enjoys full access may not have the meaningful access Florida's Constitution guarantees.

E. The Treatment of Dismissed Cases May Not Align with Statutory Purpose

The public records exemption in Florida Statute § 119.071(2)(j) protects petitioner safety by maintaining confidentiality "until the respondent is served." This protective purpose—preventing respondents from learning of pending petitions before safe service can occur—no longer applies once a case is dismissed without service or once a secondary petition is served.

Yet under current implementation, dismissed cases may remain permanently inaccessible to respondents. This perpetual confidentiality appears to extend beyond the statute's protective purpose.

The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records (page 12) contemplate that parties have access to "all records in the party's case except expunged or sealed." A respondent named in a petition is a party to that case. Clarification that dismissed cases are not subject to perpetual pre-service confidentiality—and that parties retain access rights to cases in which they were named—would align implementation with both statutory purpose and the Standards document.

F. The Need for Uniform Statewide Guidance

The documented county-by-county variations in Matrix interpretation demonstrate the urgent need for clarification from the Florida Supreme Court. When some counties grant respondent access to dismissed case files while others deny access entirely, constitutional rights effectively depend on geography—a result fundamentally incompatible with Florida's constitutional framework.

The Equal Protection Clause requires that "litigants stand on an equality before the bar of justice in every American court." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 17 (1956). When a respondent's access to court records depends on which county courthouse they enter rather than uniform statewide standards, the fundamental promise of equal justice is broken. Uniform guidance from the Court would ensure that all Florida litigants have consistent access rights regardless of geography.

G. Questions Regarding Waiver Form Authority

Florida Statute § 741.30(4) uses mandatory language: the court "shall set a hearing" and the respondent "shall be personally served." Whether clerk-created waiver forms permitting petitioners to bypass these statutory requirements align with legislative intent is a question that may warrant attention.

Clerks of court are ministerial officers who perform duties "in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without the exercise of the person's own judgment or discretion." § 112.312(17), Fla. Stat. The proliferation of waiver forms—which vary in language and availability across counties—raises questions about the boundaries of ministerial authority.

H. Separation of Powers Considerations

Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution divides governmental powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Legislature has enacted specific statutory requirements for injunction proceedings, including mandatory hearing and service provisions.

If policy considerations warrant modification of these statutory requirements—such as permitting waiver of hearings in certain circumstances—such modifications appropriately come from the Legislature, which can balance competing interests and establish uniform statewide standards with appropriate procedural safeguards.

I. Ensuring Access to Material Information

When a clerk files a Notice of Related Case Search, the court is alerted to prior proceedings involving the same parties. This procedural mechanism creates a fundamental structural inequity: the court and opposing counsel gain access to information bearing directly on credibility, the validity of allegations, and the history between the parties—information that remains entirely inaccessible to the respondent.

The foundational principle of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)—that fundamental fairness requires disclosure of material favorable evidence—applies with force to proceedings that carry significant consequences, including restrictions on constitutional rights such as firearm possession, freedom of movement, and associational liberty.

When the clerk of court files a Notice of Related Case Search that reveals prior proceedings to the court and petitioner's counsel—while simultaneously maintaining those same records secret and inaccessible to the respondent—fundamental fairness is compromised.

IV. Relief Requested

Clarification or modification of the Access Security Matrix to ensure that pro se parties receive equivalent access to their own case files as represented parties receive through their attorneys, eliminating any unintended wealth-based disparity in access to court records.

Clarification of the treatment of dismissed cases, providing guidance that once a case is dismissed without service, the protective purpose of pre-service confidentiality provisions no longer applies, and parties have a right to access case files in which they were named.

Guidance regarding waiver forms, clarifying whether such forms align with statutory mandates and, if so, establishing uniform standards for their use across all counties.

Clarification of the scope of the § 119.071(2)(j) exemption, confirming that this protective provision was designed to ensure safe service rather than to permanently conceal allegations from named respondents.

Consideration of requiring notice of prior related proceedings by the clerk, such that when any new injunction petition is served, the respondent receives notice of—and access to—any prior unserved petitions, orders and findings involving the same parties or facts, enabling respondents to assert appropriate defenses.

V. Conclusion

The concerns raised reflect unintended consequences of implementation rather than any deliberate design. The Access Security Matrix serves legitimate purposes, and the safety concerns underlying pre-service confidentiality provisions are valid and important.

However, the current implementation has produced results that may not have been anticipated: wealth-based disparities in party access, inconsistent county-by-county application, and perpetual concealment of dismissed case files from named respondents. These outcomes raise constitutional concerns that warrant attention.

The relief requested is modest and targeted. The goal is not to eliminate confidentiality protections or compromise petitioner safety. Rather, the request is for clarification and modification to ensure that: (1) all parties have equal access to their own case files regardless of ability to afford counsel; (2) dismissed cases do not remain perpetually confidential once the protective purpose has ended; and (3) uniform standards govern implementation across all sixty-seven counties.

Uniform guidance would provide the clarity necessary to align the Matrix's implementation with constitutional requirements.