Bizal v. Connick
| Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. CA-4951,CA-4951 |
| Citation | 489 So.2d 343 |
| Parties | Gary W. BIZAL v. Harry CONNICK, Orleans Parish District Attorney. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Gary W. Bizal, Levy & Bizal, Marrero, pro se.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Judith Brewster, Asst. Dist. Atty., Timothy M. Warner, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for Harry Connick.
Before GULOTTA, WILLIAMS and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
This is an appeal of a judgment granting defendant District Attorney Harry Connick's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum and dismissing the petition for writ of mandamus filed by plaintiff, Gary W. Bizal. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting the motion and dismissing the petition.
On July 2, 1985, plaintiff made a formal demand upon defendant to turn over for inspection the files of three cases which allegedly had been finally adjudicated. The District Attorney's office responded that the records in question are not subject to disclosure because under the Public Records Act, La.R.S. 44:1 et seq., these records pertain to reasonably anticipated criminal litigation which has not been "finally adjudicated or otherwise settled." La.R.S. 44:3(A)(1). On July 23, 1985, plaintiff filed petitions for a writ of mandamus and a subpoena duces tecum, alleging the three case files do not contain any information exempted from the full disclosure requirement of the Public Records Act and that defendant arbitrarily and capriciously refused plaintiff access to the files.
At issue is the proper interpretation of La.R.S. 44:3, set forth below in part:
A. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to require disclosures of records, or the information contained therein, held by the offices of the attorney general, district attorneys, sheriffs, police departments, Department of Public Safety, marshals, investigators, correctional agencies, or intelligence agencies of the state, which records are:
(1) Records pertaining to pending criminal litigation or any criminal litigation which can be reasonably anticipated, until such litigation has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled; or
(2) Records containing the identity of a confidential source of information or records which would tend to reveal the identity of a confidential source of information;
Defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum, as well as an answer to plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus. Defendant maintained the cases had not been finally adjudicated because the defendants therein had not exhausted all their state and federal remedies. In particular, Jerome Powell currently has an appeal pending before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Also, the records contain information about the identities of grand jury witnesses who are confidential sources of information, as well as other information...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Norris
...in favor of Harrison enforcing the Public Records law. LRS 44:1 et seq.; LSA-Const. Art. 12, Sec. 3. Relying on Bizal v. Connick, 489 So.2d 343 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ denied, and because Harrison stated his intent to seek post-conviction relief, the DA contends his records are not pub......
-
94-206 La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94, Winn v. City of Alexandria
...5] 571 So.2d 657 (La.1990); State v. Campbell, 566 So.2d 1038 (La.App.3d Cir.), writ denied, 567 So.2d 111 (La.1990); Bizal v. Connick, 489 So.2d 343 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 491 So.2d 10 (La.1986)). A review of the record in this case reveals that on October 5, 1992, a contradictor......
-
Revere v. Layrisson
...571 So.2d 657 (La.1990); State v. Campbell, 566 So.2d 1038 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 567 So.2d 111 (La.1990); Bizal v. Connick, 489 So.2d 343 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 491 So.2d 10 Pursuant to La.R.S. 44:31, "any person of the age of majority may inspect, copy or reproduce or ......
-
Innocence Project New Orleans v. New Orleans Police Dep't
...Project did not claim any actual damages. 4.Lemmon v. Connick expressly disapproved of our inconsistent holding in Bizal v. Connick, 489 So.2d 343 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). 5. After the trial judge ordered the records produced, the custodian's counsel requested for the first time that they be......