Hilliard City School Dist. v. Columbus Div. of Police

Mandamus denied SERB did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed unfair labor practice charges as untimely.

<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

This appeal concerns a request for public records. Phil Williams ("Mr. Williams"), a reporter, requested records from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services ("TDMHSAS") and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") ("the State," collectively) concerning an alleged affair between two State officials that may have involved public funds. The State refused on the basis that the records were part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Mr. Williams and his employer, Scripps Media, Inc. ("Scripps"), ("Petitioners," collectively) then filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Davidson County ("the Trial Court") seeking the records via the Tennessee Public Records Act ("the TPRA"), Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-101 et seq. Before the petition was heard, the investigation ended and the State produced the records. The Trial Court found the public interest exception applied notwithstanding the petition's mootness and determined that the records were exempted from disclosure by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16. Petitioners appealed. As did the Trial Court, we find this to be a matter of public interest warranting resolution even though moot. We hold that non-investigative public records made in the ordinary course of business, capable of being accessed from their inception by citizens of Tennessee, do not become exempt from disclosure because of the initiation of a criminal investigation in which they become relevant. Finding the State's legal argument reasonable although erroneous, we decline Petitioners' request for attorney's fees under the TPRA. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

In each of two cases, the defendant Freedom of Information Commission appealed from the judgment of the trial court sustaining an appeal from the commission's decision ordering the disclosure of unredacted records after rejecting the claims of the city of Middletown that the requested information was protected. A city employee alleged that the city's mayor had harassed her and a union representing city employees alleged that the mayor had improperly solicited campaign contributions from its members. In response to these complaints, the city's legislative body, the common council, hired a law firm to conduct an investigation. In the first case, the defendant D, a former member of the common council, sent a request to the plaintiff, the clerk of the common council, for, inter alia, invoices submitted to the city by the law firm in connection with its investigation. In response, the clerk sent D the requested records after redacting the names of city employees and the dates on which meetings occurred between those employees and the law firm's attor- neys. Thereafter, D filed a complaint with the commission challenging the redactions with respect only to the name of the clerk and the dates of the meetings. Following a hearing, the commission ordered that the requested records be produced without the contested redactions. The clerk appealed to the trial court, which sustained her objection, determining that the redacted information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 1-210 (b) (2) and (10)), and the commission appealed to this court. In the second case, the defendant mayor filed a complaint with the commis- sion after the clerk produced redacted records in response to his request for, inter alia, communications between the law firm and the city. The commission ordered the disclosure of certain records but permitted the redaction of the names of then current city employees and their job titles. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, two members of the co

Negligence; emergency call; public duty; proximate cause. Plaintiff was driving a semi-trailer while stopped at a traffic light. Defendant's employee, a state trooper, negligently drove his vehicle into plaintiff's trailer. The evidence did not support defendant's argument that the trooper was on an emergency call at the time of the incident. The public duty rule also did not apply in this situation. However, plaintiff failed to prove that the minor traffic incident was the proximate cause of his personal injury and request for damages. Judgment for defendant.