Chandler v. City of Sanford

• Decision Date: 13 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 5D12–3735.,5D12–3735.
• Citation: 121 So.3d 657
• Parties: Robert Scott CHANDLER, Appellant, v. CITY OF SANFORD and Janet R. Dougherty, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

121 So.3d 657

Robert Scott CHANDLER, Appellant,

v.CITY OF SANFORD and Janet R. Dougherty, etc., Appellee.

No. 5D12–3735.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fifth District.

Sept. 13, 2013.

Paul R. McAdoo, Gregg D. Thomas, and Sarah R. Craig, of Thomas & Locicero PL, Tampa, for Appellant.

Lamar D. Oxford and Joseph R. Flood, Jr., of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

RODRIGUEZ, HEATHER PINDER, Associate Judge.

This appeal involves the question of whether a governmental entity may assert a public records exemption on behalf or at the direction of another governmental entity. We answer the question in the negative and reverse.

The instant appeal arises out of the trial court's dismissal of a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and is reviewable on direct appeal. SeeFla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(a); see also Mazer v. Orange Cnty., 811 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). This Court reviews such orders under the de novo standard of review. Mazer, 811 So.2d at 859.

On May 24, 2012, Appellant, Robert Chandler, made an electronic public records request to the City of Sanford Police Department's Volunteer Program Coordinator (“Coordinator”) requesting an original copy of an August 31, 2011 email sent by the Coordinator to George Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer. At the time of the request, Mr. Zimmerman was a defendant in an active criminal investigation and prosecution related to the shooting, and ultimate death, of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012.¹ The case promptly generated widespread national media attention and many local governmental entities were inundated with public records requests. Moreover, at the direction of the Governor for the State of Florida, the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman was transferred from the local State Attorney's Office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit to the State Attorney's Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit (“State Attorney”).

On May 25, 2012, the day after he first submitted his electronic request for the August 31, 2011 email, Chandler contacted the Coordinator by telephone and renewed his request. On June 2, 2012, Chandler contacted the attorney for the City of Sanford (“City”) and exchanged several emails with a City police department captain regarding his request. On June 6, 2012—eleven days from the date of his original request—Chandler received an email from the City advising that it was reviewing his request for processing.

On June 14, 2012, Chandler filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus against the City (“Petition”) demanding the production of the requested records. The following day, the trial court issued an “Order Directing Petitioner to File Proof of Service and Respondents to Show Cause or File Responsive Pleading,” which each party subsequently responded to during the pendency of the case.

On June 21, 2012, the City produced to Chandler a number of August 31, 2011 emails between the Coordinator and Mr. Zimmerman in Adobe Portable Document Format (“.PDF”) and redacted Mr. Zimmerman's email address from them. There were no other asserted redactions to the emails. At the time the redacted records were produced, the City had not been served with the Petition.

Chandler objected that the records produced were not responsive nor did they conform with the requirements of Florida's Public Records Laws. Specifically, Chandler asserted that the City did not have the right to redact Mr. Zimmerman's email address from the records, and was required to produce the records in the manner they were normally maintained, not as .PDF documents that could not be modified or edited.

In its defense, the City advised Chandler that it was unable to produce the requested records in their original, un-redacted format pursuant to a directive from the State Attorney. The City further advised that all of its records related to Mr. Zimmerman had been turned over to the State Attorney as part of the criminal investigation and prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman. The State Attorney then reviewed and redacted these records and returned the redacted records to the City as .PDFs purportedly for use in responding to public records requests. The City asserted that pursuant to the State Attorney's directive and the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution, the City did not have authority to release the original records.

On August 10, 2012, the trial court held a status hearing on the Petition. At the hearing, the City initially requested a continuance to depose Chandler and subpoena State Attorney representatives to testify at a future hearing regarding the State Attorney's asserted exemptions. In lieu of granting the continuance, the trial court inquired if the City still possessed the original emails. The city attorney was unsure if the City still possessed the original records and reminded the trial court that the City was nevertheless under a directive from the State Attorney not to disclose the original emails.

Based on the foregoing, and without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the State Attorney, not the City, was the proper party to the...