Public Records Request – Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting: Deputy William May & Timothy Jarvinen

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Florida Sunshine Law, I hereby request the following records:

Dear Custodian of Records,

Pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes (Florida Public Records Law), I am submitting this request for specific records related to the officer-involved shooting that occurred at or near the Dollar General in Mossy Head, Florida, involving Deputy William “Bill” May and Mr. Timothy Mark Jarvinen, resulting in the deaths of both individuals.

This request is being made in the public interest. Preliminary reports indicate that Mr. Jarvinen had no criminal history in Walton County or Northwest Florida, was a legal concealed carry permit holder, and had no record of prior violence. Publicly available information shows no indication of instability or aggression. In contrast, recent narratives claim the deputy was escorting Mr. Jarvinen out of the store and that shots were fired once both men were outside—with the deputy behind him.

Given this context, the public has a right to know exactly what happened and whether proper use-of-force protocols and de-escalation practices were followed. This request is made not to assign blame, but to uncover facts that matter for public trust and accountability.

Requested Records:
All body-worn camera footage and in-car video/audio from Deputy William May and any other deputies present at the scene.

911 audio recordings, dispatch logs, radio traffic, and CAD reports relating to the incident from the time of the call through the conclusion of the scene.

Full incident and supplemental reports, including witness statements, officer narratives, and scene diagrams.

All store surveillance video (Dollar General and surrounding businesses) acquired by law enforcement or reviewed during the investigation.

The complete personnel file of Deputy William May, including:

Use-of-force records (past and present),

Internal affairs complaints,

Disciplinary actions (if any),

Mental health screenings or psychological evaluations tied to employment,

Relevant training certifications, especially related to de-escalation or crowd control.

Any emails, memos, or internal communications referencing Mr. Jarvinen or this incident, dated between March 22, 2025 and April 5, 2025, including communications between deputies, supervisors, and public information officers.

The Spring Break deployment strategy or assignment roster, specifically indicating how and why Deputy May volunteered for the shift and whether Dollar General or similar retail disturbances were a known issue.

Note on Intent:
This is a deeply tragic event. Two lives were lost. But when both parties are deceased, it becomes the duty of the public—and those of us who serve the public interest—to ask:
“What really happened, and could it have been prevented?”

I request that all records be provided in electronic format where possible. If portions of the requested records are exempt or confidential, please cite the specific exemption and provide redacted versions of the non-exempt portions in accordance with Florida law.

Please confirm receipt of this request and notify me of any estimated costs prior to fulfilling it.

Thank you for your time and commitment to transparency.

Sincerely,

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days.

Sincerely,

Alabama Times

Thank you for your response and for providing the initial field case report.

After careful review, the documentation released lacks core elements expected under Florida public records law and standard incident reporting practices—especially in a matter involving two fatalities, including a sworn law enforcement officer. The “Shooting” classification is noted, but no criminal statute, offense code, or chargeable action is listed under the designated “Offenses” section. This type of omission is not consistent with typical reporting protocol for officer-involved incidents.

Pursuant to Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 24(a), and Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, the public is guaranteed access to records made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, including law enforcement. This access is not suspended simply because a case is active. Florida courts have repeatedly held that documents must be produced unless a specific and narrowly tailored statutory exemption applies.

Accordingly, I am renewing and expanding my request for the following records related to WCSO Case #2025-00042994:
1. A redacted version of the full incident/offense report, not limited to the two-page field summary already provided.
2. A copy of the CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) log, including call timestamps and unit activity narrative.
3. The 911 audio recording or full transcript associated with the original trespass call.
4. Confirmation of whether FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) or another external entity is conducting an investigation or oversight review.
5. Confirmation and availability of any body-worn or dash camera footage, including time of activation and duration.
6. Documentation indicating whether a use-of-force review, internal affairs investigation, or administrative review has been opened.
7. Identification of any external forensic or investigative personnel or agencies involved in processing the scene.

Under Fla. Stat. § 119.07(1)(f), any record withheld must be accompanied by a written explanation citing the specific exemption claimed and the reason it applies. A general reference to an “active investigation” is insufficient without this statutory clarity. Furthermore, partial disclosure with redactions is not only permitted but expected under Florida law.

At the federal level, the First Amendment and case law including Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), support the public’s right to monitor government operations—particularly in use-of-force or officer-involved fatalities.

This request is made in the public interest and in accordance with both state and federal guarantees of transparency. Please treat this as a continuation of the original request and respond within the time period established by Fla. Stat. § 119.07(1)(c).

To the Custodian of Records:

This is a formal request for records pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and Article I, Section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution concerning the fatal incident involving Deputy William May and Mr. Timothy Jarvinen in Mossy Head, Florida.

The initial field report produced in response to prior requests is insufficient. In addition, your recent communications invoking §119.071(4)(d), Fla. Stat., to categorically deny access to audio, video, and related documentation is legally unsupported and directly conflicts with controlling case law.

I. Florida Law Requires Redacted Release of Non-Exempt Records
You have cited §119.071(4)(d), claiming that audio, video, or photographic recordings are exempt from disclosure due to the death of a law enforcement officer. While this statute protects sensitive depictions of the moment of death, it does not justify withholding entire records that contain both exempt and non-exempt material.

Florida law is clear: if a record contains exempt and non-exempt material, the agency must redact the exempt portion and release the remainder. See:

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office v. Sun-Sentinel Co., 226 So. 3d 969, 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017):

“The agency is obligated to provide access to the nonexempt portions after deleting the exempt portions.”

Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420, 425 (Fla. 1979):

“Statutory exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed.”

If there are sensitive visual or audio elements in the footage, those specific portions may be redacted or muted. However, the remainder—including pre-incident footage, officer interaction, and dispatch-related metadata—must be made available under the law.

II. Active Investigation Exemption Must Be Narrowly Applied
Your office may also be relying on the “active criminal investigative information” exemption under §119.071(2)(c). However, this exemption is also narrow and conditional, not a blanket prohibition. Agencies must demonstrate how disclosure of specific records would impair the investigation.

The Florida Supreme Court and appellate courts have repeatedly held that general claims of an active investigation are insufficient. See:

Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, 520 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1988):

“An agency must show that disclosure would cause a definite and particularized harm to the investigation.”

Barfield v. City of Tallahassee, 171 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015):

“The mere status of a record as part of an ‘active investigation’ does not justify its complete nondisclosure.”

In a case involving two deceased individuals, the state's interest in protecting investigative integrity must be balanced against the public’s right to monitor government use of deadly force.

III. Records Requested That Are Not Covered by Either Exemption
None of the following records are exempt in full under the cited statutes:

911 audio transcripts or a muted/redacted version of the call

CAD logs, dispatch timestamps, and unit activity

Audit logs, metadata, and access records for body-worn or dash camera systems

Chain-of-custody forms for submitted digital evidence

Policy trigger memos (e.g., whether a use-of-force review was initiated)

Officer assignment records and deployment history on the date of the incident

Each of these constitutes a public record and must be released in full or with properly redacted content, along with specific citation of the exemption being applied.

IV. Request for Immediate Clarification and Action
Please provide the following within five (5) business days as required under §119.07(1)(c):

Redacted or muted versions of any responsive audio or video recordings.

Full CAD logs, call records, and dispatch reports for the date of the incident.

Chain-of-custody documentation and metadata associated with any body-worn or dashcam footage.

Confirmation of whether any internal personnel not assigned to the investigation have accessed the restricted footage or documentation.

A written explanation identifying the specific legal exemption being relied upon for each record withheld.

Failure to comply with Florida’s public records law may constitute a violation under §119.12, which allows for judicial enforcement and the recovery of attorneys’ fees if a court finds that records were improperly withheld.

This request is made in the public interest to ensure lawful oversight of a fatal officer-involved incident. Transparency in this matter is essential to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of law enforcement operations and investigative procedures.

Sincerely