Florida specifically excluded a third type of record that is admissible under the corresponding federal rule: that is, a record setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law.” 698 So.2d at 1201 (internal quotes and citation omitted). The court explained that, consequent to that specific exclusion, records relying “on information supplied by outside sources or that contain evaluations or statements of opinion by a public official are inadmissible,” and' determined the government investigative report was inadmissible under the “matters observed” category of Florida’s public records exception due to -its reliance on statements of non-government witnesses. Id.; see also Carter v. State, 951 So.2d 939, 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Reichenberg v. Davis, 846 So.2d 1233, 1234
holding that police report containing victim affidavit was not admissible under public records exception holding that an automobiles title history was admissible under the public records exception holding that data pulled from records regularly kept by the montana department of environmental quality was admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that agency reports ofgovernment investigations containing witness interviews were not admissible under public records exception because statements in reports were not based upon personal knowledge of government agent