Caple v. Brown
Decision Date | 29 October 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 12827,12827 |
Citation | 323 So.2d 217 |
Parties | Luie W. CAPLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kirwen BROWN, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
John S. Stephens, Coushatta, for defendant-appellant.
Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons by J. W. Jones, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PRICE, HALL and MARVIN, JJ.
Plaintiff, Luie W. Caple, Jr., an elector and taxpayer residing in Red River Parish, filed suit against defendant, Kirwen Brown, Sheriff of Red River Parish, seeking to compel the sheriff to allow an examination by plaintiff of the defendant's financial records relating to the sheriff's salary fund from July 19, 1972 to the present time, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 44:1 et seq., (the Public Records Law).
The matter was heard in a summary manner by the district court. The evidence adduced consisted of a stipulation and the testimony of Sheriff Brown. It was stipulated that plaintiff is a citizen of Red River Parish, a taxpayer, and an elector. The sheriff testified plaintiff made a request at the sheriff's office to examine the records in question, which request was rejected by the sheriff. The sheriff testified he knew plaintiff, that he offered a copy of the legislative auditor's report to plaintiff, that he subsequently published the auditor's reports covering his office for the period 1964 through 1974, noting in the publication that 'since one of the candidates seeking by office has seen fit to bring suit to inspect my department's payroll records (records that could have been inspected without bringing suit), I have decided to publish these records for all to see.' He further testified that although the records are available and he is in a position to do so, he would not voluntarily allow plaintiff to examine the payroll records.
The district court, for oral reasons expressed at the conclusion of the hearing, rejected defendant's contention that the Public Records Law is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite and overly broad--the only defese urged in the trial court. Judgment was rendered ordering the sheriff to produce for the inspection of plaintiff the financial records of the sheriff's salary fund for the years 1972 to date on October 20, 1975, during regular business hours at the sheriff's office in Coushatta, Louisiana. It was further ordered that plaintiff be granted the right to make memoranda or copies from these records but shall not remove them from the Red River Parish Courthouse.
Defendant was granted and perfected a suspensive appeal from the judgment of the district court. On appeal, defendant specifies three errors:
'(1) The Trial Court erred in ordering Sheriff Kirwen Brown to produce for plaintiff, Luie Caple, certain records or writings (as public records) after finding as a matter of fact that plaintiff upon making his request to Sheriff Brown for such production did not identify himself as an elector of the State, a taxpayer or any duly authorized agent of an elector of taxpayer.
'(2) That the order of the Court directing defendant, Sheriff Brown, to produce various documents and writings was in the nature of a declaratory judgment, and enlarged upon the relief prayed for.
'(3) The Trial Court erred in failing to find as unconstitutional the statute defining public records as being vague and overbroad.'
The applicable provisions of the Public Records Law (LSA-R.S. 44:1, et seq.) are as follows:
' § 1. General definitions
'A. All records, writings, accounts, letters and letter books, maps, drawings, memoranda and papers, and all copies or duplicates thereof, and all photographs or other similar reproductions of the same, having been used, being in use, or prepared for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function which was conducted, transacted or performed by or under the authority of the Constitution or the laws of this state, or the ordinances or mandates or orders of any municipal or parish government or officer or any board or commission or office established or set up by the Constitution or the laws of this state, or concerning or relating to the receipt or payment of any money received or paid by or under the authority of the Constitution or the laws of this state are public records, subject to the provisions of this Chapter except as hereinafter provided.
' § 31. Right to examine records
'The right to examine, copy, photograph and take memoranda of any and all public records, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, may be exercised by:
(1) Any elector of the state.
(2) Any taxpayer who has paid any tax collected by or under the authority of the state if payment was made within one year from the date the taxpayer applies to exercise the right.
(3) Any duly authorized agent of paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International Federation v. Superior Court
...P.2d 66 (statute exempted personnel records but required disclosure of employee names, salaries, and length of employment); Caple v. Brown (La. 1975) 323 So.2d 217 (sheriff required to disclose records of salary fund); Moberly v. Herboldsheimer (1975) 276 Md. 211, 345 A.2d 855 (hospital req......
-
Fed. of Eng'Rs, Local 21 v. Superior Court
...rights; noting that salaries of state and municipal employees were commonly published by statute or by custom]; Caple v. Brown (La.App.1975) 323 So.2d 217, 218, 221 [sheriff's payroll records were subject to disclosure]; Moak v. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. (1975) 18 Pa.Cmwlth. 599, 336 A.2......
-
In re Charleston Gazette Foia Request
...exists a reasonable concern by the public that government conduct itself fairly and use public funds responsibly."); Caple v. Brown, 323 So.2d 217 (La.App., 1975) (Financial records relating to sheriff's salary fund constituted "public records" within meaning of statute conferring right to ......
-
County Com'rs of Norfolk County v. Board of Norfolk County Retirement System
...(1978) 920.6 Cf. Gainesville v. State ex rel. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local No. 2157, 298 So.2d 478 (Fla.1974); Caple v. Brown, 323 So.2d 217 (La.App.1975); Dunlea v. Goldmark, 54 App.Div.2d 446 (N.Y.1976), 389 N.Y.S.2d 423, aff'd, 43 N.Y.2d 754, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 372 N.E.2d 798 (1977......