Mario R. Perkins v. Frank Strada, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction

<bold>Public Records — exemptions — criminal investigation — criminal</bold> <bold>intelligence information</bold> <block_quote> Although the trial court did not err in a declaratory judgment action by dismissing plaintiffs' complaint seeking production of records of a criminal investigation or records of criminal intelligence information conducted by defendant State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) related to a fatal fire that occurred in a county jail, plaintiffs are entitled to release of any other information classified as public records under N.C.G.S. §§ <cross_reference>132-1.4</cross_reference>(c) and (k) as well as any other public records not specifically exempted from disclosure, because: (1) the Public Records Act under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>132-1</cross_reference> provides exemptions including that records of criminal investigations conducted by public law enforcement agencies or records of criminal intelligence information compiled by public law enforcement agencies are not public records; (2)<page_number>Page 155</page_number> exclusion of these types of records protects confidentiality of government informants, protects investigative techniques used by law enforcement agencies, and protects against the use of hearsay that investigators often use for their opinions and conclusions; (3) if investigatory files were made public subsequent to the termination of enforcement proceedings, the ability of any investigatory body to conduct future investigations would be seriously impaired when few persons would respond candidly to investigators if they feared that their remarks would become public record, the investigative techniques of the investigating body would be disclosed to the general public, and a person's right of privacy would be violated if their name was mentioned or accused of wrongdoing in unverified or unverifiable hearsay statements of others included in such reports; (4) the Public Records Act contains no exception for disclosure of rec

<bold>1. Associations; Schools and Education — standing — nonprofit</bold> <bold>organization — associational basis inapplicable</bold> <block_quote> Wake Cares, Inc., a nonprofit organization, did not have associational standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging a county board of education's plan to convert traditional calendar schools to year-round schools and then to assign students to those schools on a mandatory basis because the organization has no members and could not seek relief "on behalf of its members." Furthermore, the organization could not rely on<page_number>Page 2</page_number> the constituency theory of <italic>Hunt v. Washington State</italic> <italic>Apple Adver. Comm'n</italic>, <cross_reference>432 U.S. 333</cross_reference> (1977), to establish standing where it made no attempt to show that it meets the constituency test of that case.</block_quote> <bold>2. Declaratory Judgments; Schools and Education — standing — challenge to</bold> <bold>mandatory year-round schools — parents of students</bold> <block_quote> The individual plaintiffs, parents of public school students, have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action individually and as guardians ad litem of their children challenging a county board of education's plan to assign students to year-round schools on a mandatory basis because the individual plaintiffs were directly affected by the board's action where each of the students was initially assigned to a year-round school, and even though some of the students were ultimately reassigned to traditional calendar schools, they may still be assigned to year-round schools in the future.</block_quote> <bold>3. Declaratory Judgment; Schools and Education — subject matter</bold> <bold>jurisdiction — exhaustion of administrative remedies</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by denying the board of education's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for a declaratory judgment based on an alleged fa