Florida’s wildlife agency didn’t just clash with environmentalists at public meetings or online, they went digging through personal driving records, sometimes repeatedly, targeting at least a dozen people who spoke out against bear hunting and efforts to give hunting and fishing constitutional protections in Florida.
Records obtained by the Orlando Sentinel reveal the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission accessed activists’ DMV data in secret, sometimes with no criminal investigation underway. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission checked one man’s driving records 28 times.
The agency didn’t just stop at activists. They even investigated the driving records of Shawna Beach, Taylor County’s Republican property appraiser, and her husband. The Beaches are now suing the commission in federal court, arguing that the commission violated their privacy and civil rights.
For a while, the commission claimed it was all part of a criminal investigation, a line that, under the law, would have justified the searches. But recently, a spokesperson admitted in an interview with the Sentinel that there are no criminal investigations involving these people, despite that previous excuse. No one seems to know what the agency did with the information it dug up.
Shawna Beach’s lawsuit explains her position: the agency searched her personal records even though no investigation involved her. She’s not the only one thinking of legal action; at least one environmental activist is ready to go to court, too.
What ties everyone together? All these people made trouble for the commission, whether at hearings, in lawsuits, or just by posting critical comments online.
“There is a clear abuse of power,” said Katrina Shadix, the head of Bear Warriors United and a longtime activist. She’s no stranger to the courtroom; she won a federal case last year over Florida breaking the Endangered Species Act.
Shadix is one of 13 environmentalists who belonged to an Instagram group, came to commission hearings, and learned the hard way that the agency was combing through their personal information. When they asked why, they got nowhere. One man discovered that someone had accessed his records 28 separate times.
Brent Fannin, a documentarian and former University of Florida staffer, found out he was under surveillance after getting an anonymous tip from inside the commission: “They’re watching you. They know where you live.” When he requested details about the supposed investigation, an officer told him the files were part of an “active criminal investigation” and shielded from public records law. Months later, they revoked that claim.
The Beaches’ lawsuit also spells out retaliation: they say officers tried to frame Dustin Beach with felony charges after he publicly criticized the agency and complained internally about officer conduct. Those charges were eventually dropped in exchange for a reduced plea. But the suit says the commission’s officers went looking in Shawna Beach’s DMV files even though she wasn’t a suspect or witness, just a critic.
Finding out about this, Fannin asked the DMV who had searched his records. Two commission agents had pulled his information seven times over a two-month stretch, claiming “criminal investigation” each time.
Now, with the agency forced to admit there’s no criminal probe, commission spokesperson Shannon Knowles says those searches were just “proactive security measures” ahead of public meetings and to keep the commission’s employees safe.
For Fannin, that felt like proof of what he already suspected: the commission was tracking outspoken critics, probably matching license plates to faces before meetings and keeping tabs on people who organized online. The claim of a criminal investigation was just a cover, he said, and if they misused the system, they broke federal law.
He also knows why the agency targeted him. First, he released a critical documentary, “Gopher Games,” about how the agency handled gopher tortoise permits, and the film sparked a backlash online. Second, he helped author a bill that would have required commission members to know something about environmental science. The bill went nowhere.
Florida state Rep. Anna Eskamani, who sponsored Fannin’s bill, didn’t mince words when she heard about the surveillance: “This is some Big Brother kind of stuff.” She’s called for reform at the commission, especially since its board, packed with real estate developers and big Republican donors appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, keeps approving projects that threaten the environment.
State law is clear: the DMV database (called DAVID) holds sensitive personal information. Officers can only use it for official investigations, criminal cases, traffic matters, child neglect, and background checks. In fact, after a trooper’s personal information was used to harass her in 2011, Florida tightened access and increased penalties for misuse. In 2021, DeSantis raised the fines to $2,000 per violation.
None of this stopped commission agents from looking up Chuck O’Neal, an environmental leader from Volusia County and head of Speak Up Wekiva. He led the fight against Amendment 2, which makes hunting and fishing protected rights in the state constitution. O’Neal wasn’t surprised to learn that 28 people had accessed his DMV file, which contained his addresses, vehicles, and signatures, between April 2023 and February 2024.
“Maybe I’m a little jaded after all the years of activism, because my life is an open book,” he said. O’Neal knew he’d “been a pain in the butt” to the commission on more than one front.
Shadix has already talked to her lawyers who helped her win in federal court last year, and they think the commission crossed several lines. She’s preparing her own lawsuit. She hopes shining a light on this secret surveillance will help Florida’s environmental community push for big changes at the agency.
“They are breaking federal law to take our right to free speech,” Shadix said. “That’s especially heinous when the most powerful people in the state are involved. They didn’t want us speaking truth to power. But we’re not going to put up with it.”
The Englewood REVIEW reached out to the FWC for comment and this was their response.
“The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission takes the concerns raised in recent reporting seriously. That reporting has called into question how — and why — members of our Division of Law Enforcement utilized the Driver and Vehicle Information Database, known as DAVID. DAVID is a restricted state system, available to law enforcement for legitimate official purposes, that holds sensitive personal information, including driver and vehicle records and home addresses. The questions raised are specific: whether that access was appropriate in cases involving Floridians who have posed a threat or concern to this agency. Some have spoken at our public meetings or publicly criticized this agency and its commissioners. Those are serious questions, and they deserve a direct and transparent response.
Let us begin with a principle we will not compromise: every Floridian has the right to speak at our public meetings, to petition this agency, and to disagree with our decisions and our commissioners. We support that right without reservation. Taking part in the public process should never carry a personal cost.
FWC is a unique agency in that we are very public facing. We manage millions of acres of wildlife management areas. We manage thousands of miles of rivers, lakes, and shoreline. We have many different types of stakeholders that all have an interest in our agency – hunters, fishers, hikers, boaters, wildlife watchers, etc.
FWC conducts workshops, public meetings on Wildlife Management Areas management plans, stakeholder meetings, outreach events for adults and children, rule development meetings, in addition to four Commission meetings per year. All these meetings are held in public forums, allowing members of the public and stakeholders to address the Commission with their opinions on the matter at issue. Additionally, law enforcement officers have daily interaction with the public; many biologists and other staff have public interaction on a frequent basis.
Sometimes those stakeholders all agree on various issues, but not always. The issues that come before the Commission are at times controversial, and that means stakeholders on each side of the issue are passionate about their position. This can lead to safety and operational concerns that require vigilance to ensure the protection of all meeting participants.
Taking threats seriously is common sense and requires preparedness and planning. Keeping the public, our staff, and our Commissioners safe is a very real and critical responsibility. We included a small sample of serious threats on various social media platforms that we have received because of FWC’s work. One of the most egregious on the list was during the debate over the bear hunt, when commissioners and staff received threats such as “don’t let it kill him, let him live totally paralyzed and in agony for many years to come.”
In addition to these threats, additional examples include:
- Employees have been doxed (i.e., information requested for two employees and their home addresses were made public).
- Calls have been received requesting specific information as to the location of offices in specific buildings.
- People targeted a commissioner’s business by setting up a protest and intentionally leaving negative reviews to try to influence his vote.
Due to these and other types of actions, the DAVID inquiry was conducted for public safety purposes. We believe that multiple DAVID inquiries were conducted in conjunction with recurring Commission events and public safety planning that are consistent with legitimate law enforcement practices. Assessing credible threats to the people who attend our meetings and work in our facilities is a legitimate and lawful function of law enforcement, and we take every threat seriously.
FWC must balance these threats with our need to continue to operate in the public. Situational awareness, safety assessments, and safety planning are a must in order for FWC to continue its mission.
We thank the Floridians who participate in the process and who see the value of every person who works or volunteers with FWC. We all have a role in making Florida a national leader in conservation and outdoor recreation and helping ensure our natural resources remain accessible for future generations.
That work must stay within the limits of the law, and it must respect the privacy of every Floridian. Protecting people and protecting rights are not competing goals, and we intend to honor both.”
Click here for more information on the FWC.
(Story Sources: FWC, Orlando Sentinel, WESH Orlando, msn.com)
