Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dept.
Decision Date | 05 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 3771.,3771. |
Citation | 358 S.C. 339,594 S.E.2d 888 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ray B. BURTON, III and East Coast Newspapers, Inc., Respondents/Appellants, v. YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and Bruce Bryant, York County Sheriff, Appellants/Respondents. |
Melvin B. McKeown, Jr. and Elizabeth H. Robinson, both of York, for Appellants/Respondents.
Jay Bender, of Columbia, for Respondents/Appellants.
Robert E. Lyon, Jr. and M. Clifton Scott, both of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Association of Counties.
Sandra J. Senn and Stephanie P. McDonald, both of Charleston, for Amici Curiae South Carolina Sheriffs' Association and South Carolina Fraternal Order of Police.
In this case, we decide whether the Freedom of Information Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 30-4-10 to -165 (1991 & Supp.2003) ("FOIA"), requires the Sheriff of York County ("the Sheriff") and the York County Sheriff's Department (collectively, "the Sheriff's Department") to provide information regarding alleged illegal and unethical conduct of four deputy sheriffs to Ray B. Burton, III and East Coast Newspapers, Inc. (collectively, "Burton").
Sometime in early 2000, four York County deputy sheriffs were suspended without pay for "conduct unbecoming an officer." The suspension followed an internal investigation of a complaint lodged against the deputies by Lori Williams, a citizen of York County. After filing her complaint, Williams contacted Burton, a reporter for The Herald newspaper, which is published in Rock Hill. Williams informed Burton that her complaint to the Sheriffs Department included falsification of investigative reports, possession of stolen property, abuse of authority, and sexual activity in patrol cars.
In an effort to obtain more information for a newspaper report, Burton submitted written requests to the Sheriffs Department for access to records it possessed relating to Williams' complaint and the Sheriff's Department's response to the complaint. Burton identified two specific categories of information he wanted:
The Sheriff's Department's response only provided information as to the date of hire, title/rank, and pay/rate schedule for each of the named deputies. It claimed all other information requested was exempt from disclosure under FOIA because the information was of a personal nature and disclosing it would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. The personal privacy exemption is provided under S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(2) (1991). Alternatively, the Sheriff's Department claimed the information requested was exempt under S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(3) (Supp.2003) ( ) and § 30-4-40(a)(7) (1991) (). Burton initiated this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
After conducting an in camera review of the Sheriff's Department's records that the Department claimed were exempt from disclosure, the trial court concluded the Department had violated the FOIA. The judge "permanently enjoined and restrained" the Sheriff's Department "from asserting exemptions from mandatory disclosure that have no legal or factual justification, and from continuing to refuse to segregate exempt and non-exempt material and make non-exempt public records available for inspection and copying."
The trial court found that a portion of the records submitted for in camera review revealed information that would lead to an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy if disclosed. In its findings of fact, the court concluded "the Williams' allegations relating to the off-duty sexual practices and activities of the deputies is personal and private, as are the photographs in the record of Williams and Deputy Sullivan." Burton has not appealed or otherwise contested this finding.
Burton sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment pursuant to FOIA.
580 S.E.2d at 165; see also Goldston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 358 S.C. 157, 594 S.E.2d 511 (S.C. Ct.App. 2004) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 8 at 52) ( that because declaratory judgment actions are neither legal nor equitable, standard of review depends on nature of underlying issues); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Auto World, 334 S.C. 137, 511 S.E.2d 692 (Ct.App.1999) ( ).
221 S.E.2d at 775; Barnacle Broad., Inc. v. Baker Broad., Inc., 343 S.C. 140, 538 S.E.2d 672 (Ct.App.2000); see also Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct.App.2003) ( ).
The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act is codified as sections 30-4-10 to -165 in the South Carolina Code. See S.C.Code Ann. §§ 30-4-10 to -165 (1991 & Supp.2003). Upon request, FOIA mandates disclosure of records held by a "public body" unless the documents fall within enumerated exemptions. See S.C.Code Ann. §§ 30-4-30 to -40 (Supp. 2003). As our Legislature explicitly provided in enacting FOIA, disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act:
The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. Toward this end, provisions of this chapter must be construed so as to make it possible for citizens, or their representatives, to learn and report fully the activities of their public officials at a minimum cost or delay to the persons seeking access to public documents or meetings.
S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-15 (1991).
547 S.E.2d at 864-65 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williamson v. Middleton
... ... County of Aiken, 302 S.C. 178, 182, 394 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1990) ... 598, 613, 595 S.E.2d 864, 872 (Ct.App.2004); Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dep't, 358 S.C. 339, 358, 594 ... ...
-
Floyd v. Floyd
... ... upon which such finding is based." Spartanburg County Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. Padgett, 296 S.C. 79, 83, 370 ... to prove the truth of the matter asserted." See Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dept., 358 S.C. 339, 594 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Moosally v. WW Norton & Co., Inc.
...not controlling. As set forth in the previous section, the factual record reveals with clarity the activities and conduct of W.W. Norton 358 S.C. 339 in South Carolina. Indubitably, the publication of a libel is a basis for a defamation action. The dissemination of the book in South Carolin......
-
Seabrook Island Property v. Berger
... ... 289, 308, 486 S.E.2d 750, 760 (1997); Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dept., 358 S.C. 339, 358, 594 ... ...
-
Redefining due process analysis: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the concept of emergent rights.
...(W.D.N.C. 2003); Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1221 (C.D. Cal. 2003); and Burton v. York County Sheriffs Dep't, 594 S.E.2d 888, 896 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004). See also In re W.M., 851 A.2d 431, 449 n.24 (D.C. 2004) (implying that Lawrence created a fundamental right and su......