Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake County Board of Education

<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>Declaratory Judgments — procedure for administration of oaths —</bold> <bold>litigation appears unavoidable</bold> <block_quote> A de novo review revealed that the trial court erred by concluding that plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable controversy in their complaint for a declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>11-2</cross_reference> describing the procedure for the administration of oaths, because: (1) although it is not necessary that one party have an actual right of action against another to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of an actual controversy, it is necessary that litigation appear unavoidable; (2) plaintiff individual demonstrated her intent to avail herself of her asserted right to swear on her religious text, the Quran, and her intent to litigate that right; (3) the State demonstrated, by its refusal to permit<page_number>Page 431</page_number> witnesses to swear on any text other than the Christian Bible, its intent to continue the course of action; (4) the facts do not suggest any impediments to litigation that would make litigation avoidable in the absence of a declaratory judgment; and (5) plaintiff ACLU-NC has sufficiently indicated that its members intend to avail themselves of their rights, ACLU-NC has manifested an intent to litigate the issue, and there is no impediment to litigation which would render litigation avoidable.</block_quote>