Custodian of Records v. State
Decision Date | 09 June 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 02-3063-W.,02-3063-W. |
Citation | 680 N.W.2d 792,2004 WI 65,272 Wis.2d 208 |
Parties | In the Matter of a John Doe Proceeding Commenced by Affidavit Dated July 25, 2001: Custodian of Records for the Legislative Technology Services Bureau, Petitioner, v. State of Wisconsin and the Honorable Sarah B. O'Brien, presiding, Respondents. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the petitioner there were briefs by Peter J. Dykman and Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, and Michael L. Reig and Legislative Technology Services Bureau, Madison, and oral argument by Peter J. Dykman.
For the respondent, State of Wisconsin, the cause was argued by Alan Lee, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general.
For the respondent, the Honorable Sarah B. O'Brien, there was a brief by Nancy E. Wheeler and Knuteson, Powers & Wheeler, S.C., Racine, and Robert E. Hankel and Robert E. Hankel, S.C., Racine, and oral argument by Robert E. Hankel.
¶ 1.
This appeal arises out of a John Doe investigation, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.26 (2001-02),2 of certain legislators and legislative employees for what is suspected to be criminal conduct. Before us is a writ of assistance asking that the John Doe judge's subpoena be quashed. In support of the writ, five contentions are made: (1) that the documents sought are privileged due to the interaction of Wis. Stat. § 13.96 and Wis. Stat. § 905.01; (2) that the subpoena violates Article IV, Section 16 of the Wisconsin Constitution; (3) that the subpoena violates the common law separation of powers doctrine; (4) that the subpoena violates Article IV, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and (5) that the subpoena is overly broad and therefore unreasonable. We conclude that all of the documents requested are not privileged; that on this record, we cannot determine how Article IV, Section 16 of the Wisconsin Constitution relates to the data sought by the subpoena duces tecum and that even when Section 16 does apply, it provides only use immunity and not secrecy for communications of government officials and employees; and that neither the separation of powers doctrine nor Article IV, Section 8 is sufficient to excuse compliance with a valid John Doe subpoena. However, because we also conclude that the subpoena is overly broad and therefore unreasonable, we grant the supervisory writ and quash the subpoena.
¶ 2. This case arises out of a John Doe proceeding commenced in July of 2001 by the Dane County District Attorney to investigate the political caucuses that once existed for both parties in the Assembly and the Senate and to investigate whether the relationship of the caucuses to Wisconsin's senators and representatives, or the activities of certain legislators, contravened criminal laws. The matter currently before us is a challenge to a John Doe subpoena issued to the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) for electronically stored communications3 within the possession of LTSB.
¶ 3. In 1997, as a response to its increasing use of technology, the legislature enacted Wis. Stat. § 13.96, thereby creating the LTSB. The LTSB maintains legislators', constituents' and service agency e-mails; Internet web page development and access; office programs such as Word, Excel and PowerPoint; bill drafting software; geographic information systems; publishing systems supportive of Wisconsin session laws, statutes and the Wisconsin Blue Book; hunting systems support; and production of audio and video materials for distribution via the Internet. The LTSB supports approximately 900 legislative in-house computers and approximately 160 legislative notebook computers. The LTSB also maintains 54 legislative servers. Legislative documents are created on the 1,060 computers and then saved to the Y-Drives or the S-Drives on one of the LTSB's 54 legislative servers. The drives on the servers are backed up on backup tapes that are routinely made in order to preserve data, should there be an electronic failure. The data on these backup tapes include all legislative data that existed on the 54 legislative servers that support the entire legislative branch of government at the moment in time when the backup tapes were made.
¶ 4. In this action, the John Doe judge has ordered the LTSB to produce the backup tapes that were made on December 15, 2001 for all 54 servers, or in the alternative, to extract all "documents" for certain named legislators, their aides, and every person who worked in the Democratic and Republican caucuses for both the Senate and the Assembly. The subpoena duces tecum defined "document" as:
hard copies or electronic files and e-mails, drafts, revisions, attached "post-it" notes or other supplemental material, graphic images, photographic images, disks, video recordings, tapes, or written materials regardless of how kept or denominated, and without regard to whether you consider any document to be public or private material.
¶ 5. Mark Wahl as director of the LTSB and custodian of its data is the person to whom the subpoena was directed, rather than the individual legislators, whose names have remained secret throughout these proceedings. It was Wahl who filed the motion to quash the subpoena. He raised claims of privilege, violations of two provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution, violation of the separation of powers doctrine and the overbroad scope of the subpoena, as defenses to the compulsion of the subpoena duces tecum. The John Doe judge denied the motion to quash; Wahl filed a petition for a supervisory writ in the court of appeals; the court of appeals certified the writ petition to us and we accepted certification.
¶ 6. Statutory interpretation, or the application of a statute to a known set of facts, presents questions of law that we review without deference to the circuit court. Deutsches Land, Inc. v. City of Glendale, 225 Wis. 2d 70, 79-80, 591 N.W.2d 583 (1999). Similarly, we decide constitutional questions, both state and federal, de novo. See State v. Doe, 78 Wis. 2d 161, 254 N.W.2d 210 (1977)
.
¶ 7. To properly analyze the claimed defenses to and arguments in support of the subpoena, we must first discuss the John Doe proceeding itself. It is an investigation created by Wis. Stat. § 968.26, which provides in relevant part:
214 Wis. 2d at 623-24. The result of a John Doe proceeding may be a written complaint that is subject to the test of probable cause. Doe, 78 Wis. 2d at 165.
¶ 9. We have held that witnesses in John Doe proceedings need not be apprised of the scope of the investigation. State ex. rel. Jackson v. Coffey, 18 Wis. 2d 529, 544, 118 N.W.2d 939 (1963). In addition, the secrecy aspect of a John Doe proceeding does not infringe upon a witness's First Amendment right of free speech, id. at 545-46, for the State has legitimate interests in the secrecy of the proceedings.4Id. at 546; Wisconsin Family Counseling Servs.,95 Wis. 2d at 677.
¶ 10. A John Doe judge has broad, but not unlimited, powers. State v. Washington, 83 Wis. 2d 808, 822, 266 N.W.2d 597 (1978) ( ). For example, a John Doe judge does not have the power to compel self-incriminating testimony or to grant immunity. Jackson,18 Wis. 2d at 533; Wis. Stat. § 972.08. On the other hand, a John Doe judge does have the power to subpoena witnesses. Wis. Stat. § 968.26; Wisconsin Family Counseling Servs.,95 Wis. 2d at 675. We have held that when a judge exceeds his or her powers, it is an erroneous exercise of discretion. Washington, 83 Wis. 2d at 823-24; Jackson, 18 Wis. 2d at 545. Within this framework, we begin our consideration of the parties' contentions.
¶ 11. Wahl contends that Wis. Stat. § 13.96, as it interacts with Wis. Stat. § 905.01, creates a statutory privilege that, while not expressly stated, is implicit in LTSB's obligation to treat all information within its possession as confidential. Therefore, as the legal custodian of the information stored by the LTSB, he is not required to comply with the subpoena.5 The State6 contends that the confidentiality provision of § 13.96 prevents voluntary disclosure to one who does not have proper authorization to receive the stored data, but that it is insufficient to excuse noncompliance with a valid John...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Waity v. LeMahieu
-
State v. Schaefer
... ... the following material before Commissioner Binn on July 13, 2006: "A complete copy of all reports, memorandums, witness interviews and any records related to the investigation and arrest of Ronald Schaefer on suspected criminal offenses relating to the alleged sexual assault of Kerry M. DOB ... Similarly, we review constitutional questions, both state and federal, de novo. Custodian" of Records for the Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, ¶ 6, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792 ... III. ANALYSIS ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. McClaren
... ... Custodian of Records for the LTSB v. State, 2004 WI 65, ¶ 6, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792; State v. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, ¶ 11, 232 Wis.2d 767, 606 N.W.2d ... ...
-
Milwaukee Branch Naacp v. Walker
... ... 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008), that “the inconvenience of making a trip to [a state motor vehicle office], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does ... Admin. Code § Trans 102.15(3)(a). Wisconsin Stat. § 69.21 describes how to obtain vital records, including certified copies of birth certificates, for those applicants born in Wisconsin ... Custodian of Records for the Legislative Tech. Servs. Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, ¶ 6, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 ... ...
-
Search and seizure of electronic devices
...Court addressed the Fourth Amendment requirement for particularity in the context of electronic searches in In re John Doe Proceedings , 2004 WI 65, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792, when it found that a subpoena with the following description was overbroad: “all digital computer information ......
-
Motion to Suppress - Staleness, Particularity; Franks Motion
...Court addressed the Fourth Amendment requirement for particularity in the context of electronic searches in In re John Doe Proceedings, 2004 WI 65, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792, when it found that a subpoena with the following description was “all digital computer information or data main......
-
Search and seizure of electronic devices
...Court addressed the Fourth Amendment requirement for particularity in the context of electronic searches in In re John Doe Proceedings , 2004 WI 65, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792, when it found that a subpoena with the following description was overbroad: “all digital computer information ......
-
Motion to Suppress - Staleness, Particularity; Franks Motion
...Court addressed the Fourth Amendment requirement for particularity in the context of electronic searches in In re John Doe Proceedings, 2004 WI 65, 272 Wis.2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792, when it found that a subpoena with the following description was “all digital computer information or data main......