City of Columbia v. American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., 24475

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: BURNETT; FINNEY
• Citation: 475 S.E.2d 747,323 S.C. 384
• Parties: CITY OF COLUMBIA, Respondent, v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., and Kevin Alexander Gray, a/k/a Khalid Aikiiki Gamba, Appellants. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 24475,24475
• Decision Date: 15 November 1995

Page 747

475 S.E.2d 747 323 S.C. 384 CITY OF COLUMBIA, Respondent,
v.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., and
Kevin Alexander Gray, a/k/a Khalid Aikiiki Gamba,
Appellants. No. 24475. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard Nov. 15, 1995.
Decided Aug. 12, 1996.

Page 748

[323 S.C. 385] Lex A. Rogerson, Jr. of Lexington; and Armand G. Derfner, Charleston, for Appellants.

James S. Meggs, City Attorney for the City of Columbia, for Respondent.

Jay Bender and Virginia C. Ravenel, both of Baker, Barwick, Ravenel & Bender, L.L.P., Columbia, for South Carolina Press Association as Amicus Curiae.

BURNETT, Justice:

This is an action for declaratory judgment arising under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), S.C.Code Ann. §§ 30-4-10 to -110 (1991 & Supp.1994). Appellants appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Respondent, which we reverse, and the denial of Appellants' motion to compel, which we affirm.

FACTS

On December 31, 1992, a group of teenagers was playing basketball when several plainclothes officers of the City of Columbia Police Department approached. The teenagers ran but were subsequently apprehended. The police officers detained them briefly and then released all of them. The police department later explained that the plainclothes officers were participating in "Operation Year-End Sales", a campaign to execute[323 S.C. 386] outstanding arrest warrants. The police had believed that one of the young men was a possible subject of an outstanding arrest warrant.

Appellant Gray, one of the young men, contacted Respondent to question the conduct of the police officers during the detention. In response, the Chief of Police ordered an internal investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the Chief announced that no wrongdoing on the part of the police officers had been revealed. Gray and Appellant ACLU then requested a copy of the internal investigation report (hereinafter "report") under the FOIA. Respondent refused their request and filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the report is exempt from the disclosure requirements of the FOIA.

As part of their discovery requests, Appellants sought production of the report itself. The trial court denied Appellants' motion to compel production of the report. Respondent moved the trial court for summary judgment, which was granted.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina v. Lanford, 313 S.C. 540, 443 S.E.2d 549 (1994). In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Koester v. Carolina Rental Center, Inc., 313 S.C. 490, 443 S.E.2d 392 (1994).

Under the FOIA, "[a]ny person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body, except as otherwise provided by § 30-4-40, in accordance with reasonable rules concerning time and place of access." Section 30-4-30(a). ¹ Under § 30-4-40(a)(2):

(a) The following matters are exempt from disclosure under the provisions of this chapter: ...

Page 749

[323 S.C. 387] (2) Information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute unreasonable invasion of personal privacy....

Appellants argue that summary judgment was erroneously granted because there was a genuine issue of material fact...