Officer Lookup is live. Federal sentencing-brief generation is in private beta — join the waitlist for a free pilot brief. Join waitlist →
SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT

BenchRecon Data Study · Florida

Nearly 1 in 7 disciplined Florida officers has a truthfulness offense on record.

We analyzed 6,513 Florida officer certification-discipline records published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE/CJSTC), 20122026. 938 of them — 14.4% — involve a crimen-falsi offense: perjury, false official statements or reports, falsifying records, forgery, or fraud. That is the precise category of conduct that, under FRE 608(b) and Brady/Giglio, can impeach an officer's testimony. 45.3% of those officers lost their certification.

Aggregate analysis. Reproducible from public records. No individual officer is named.

938discipline records with a crimen-falsi (truthfulness) offense
14.4%of 6,513 disciplined officers — roughly 1 in 7
45.3%of those officers had their certification revoked
321distinct employing agencies represented

What the records show

Florida maintains a statewide record of officer certification discipline through the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Across 6,513 officers with a discipline record from 2012 to 2026, 938 carry at least one crimen-falsi offense — the dishonesty conduct most directly usable to impeach a witness. Within that group (records can list more than one offense):

  • 446 false statement, false report, or false-information offenses
  • 263 fraud or embezzlement offenses
  • 191 perjury offenses
  • 44 falsifying-records offenses
  • 24 forgery or uttering offenses

A broader, dishonesty-adjacent reading — adding theft, bribery, evidence tampering, obstruction, and misuse of office — reaches 1,670 records (25.6%). We report that as context only, not as the headline, because those offenses are a weaker signal of a witness's character for truthfulness than the crimen-falsi core.

Why this matters to a defense

When a case turns on an officer's word — a stop, a statement, a search-warrant affidavit — the officer's own history of dishonesty is impeachment material the defense is entitled to. Giglio v. United States extends the prosecution's Brady disclosure duty to evidence affecting a witness's credibility, and FRE 608(b) lets the defense probe specific instances of conduct bearing on truthfulness. The figures above show how often that material exists in Florida's public discipline record — and how rarely a defender sees it without digging.

Methodology & limitations

Source & method

  • Source: public Florida FDLE/CJSTC officer certification-discipline records. Snapshot analyzed: 2026-06-16.
  • Population: 6,513 officers with a certification-discipline record, 20122026 (2026 partial). Every percentage is of this disciplined population, not of all certified officers.
  • Crimen-falsi classification: verbatim offense text matched for perjury, false statement/report/information, falsifying, forgery/uttering, fraud, and embezzlement. Theft, bribery, tampering, obstruction, and misuse of office are excluded from the headline (reported only in the broad context figure), consistent with the FRE 608(b)/609 truthfulness distinction.
  • Dismissed charges removed: before classifying, any offense clause carrying a dismissal, nolle prosequi, acquittal, exoneration, unfounded, withdrawn, or cleared marker is stripped — so a charge that did not result in an adverse outcome is never counted.
  • Reproducible: the counts come from a published script run against the source data; re-running it regenerates every figure on this page.

What the data does NOT show

  • A discipline record is not, by itself, proof of guilt in any individual matter; we count adverse dispositions as recorded.
  • A discipline record does not reflect an officer's current certification status.
  • These are statewide certification-discipline records only — not local internal-affairs files or State Attorney Brady/Giglio lists, which sit with other custodians.
  • Do not infer anything about a specific named officer from these aggregate figures. This study identifies no individual officer.

Cite this analysis

Journalists and researchers — please link to this page as the source.

BenchRecon, “Florida Officer Discipline, Analyzed: Nearly 1 in 7 Disciplined Officers Has a Truthfulness Offense” (20122026 FDLE/CJSTC data). https://benchrecon.com/florida/officer-discipline-data

Methodology questions or a data request for a story: see the Florida officer disciplinary records reference.

Check the officer in your case

BenchRecon's Officer Lookup ties FDLE/CJSTC discipline rows to a named officer, with every entry cited to the underlying public record and a records-demand roadmap for the internal-affairs and Brady/Giglio files the statewide dataset does not hold.

Common questions

What is a crimen-falsi offense and why does it matter for a criminal case?
Crimen falsi means a crime of dishonesty or false statement — perjury, false official statements or reports, falsifying records, forgery, and fraud. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) and the Brady/Giglio disclosure rules, an officer's history of such conduct bears directly on their character for truthfulness and can be used to impeach their testimony. It is the exact material a defender wants when the case turns on an officer's word.
Does the 14.4% mean 1 in 7 of all Florida officers?
No. The denominator is officers who already have an FDLE/CJSTC certification-discipline record (6,513 of them, 2012–2026), not all certified Florida officers. Every figure here is stated as "of officers with a discipline record." It is not a rate across the whole force.
Are dismissed or unfounded charges counted?
No. Offense records often list multiple charges with disposition notes. Before classifying, any clause carrying a dismissal, nolle prosequi, acquittal, exoneration, unfounded, or cleared marker is removed, so a charge that did not stick is never counted as a truthfulness offense. This is a deliberate, conservative choice for defensibility.
Does this name any individual officer?
No. This is an aggregate analysis only. It identifies no individual officer and makes no finding about anyone. To check a specific officer in your case, use the source-cited Officer Lookup tool, which ties every row to the underlying public record.