Florence Morning News v. Building Commission of City and County of Florence

Decision Date10 October 1975
Docket NumberNo. 20102,20102
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesFLORENCE MORNING NEWS, INC., and Richard G. Moisio, Appellants, v. BUILDING COMMISSION OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF FLORENCE et al., Respondents.

E. N. Zeigler, Florence, for appellants.

Peter D. Hyman, Florence, for respondent County Council of Florence County, and others.

Finley B. Clarke, Florence, for respondent Building Commission of the City and County of Florence.

D. Laurence McIntosh, Florence, for respondent City of Florence.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Donald V. Myers, and Staff Atty. Edward E. Poliakoff, Columbia, for respondents.

BRAILSFORD, Acting Associate Justice.

Pursuant to Act No. 818 of 1966, the Building Commission of the City and County of Florence has constructed, and now maintains and operates, a multi-purpose building housing, among other things, court and jail facilities of the City and County. The operation of the building by the Commission and its use by the City and County are also provided for by a contract between these three entities.

The genesis of this controversy was a resolution adopted by the Commission on November 14, 1974, prohibiting inspection of the jail book or log by anyone not 'involved in the actual booking procedure.' When reporters for the Florence Morning News were denied access to the book, this action was promptly commenced by the newspaper and by its general manager, as plaintiffs.

The complaint purports to state three causes of action. The first, alleging that the closing of the jail book impedes the business of the newspaper and 'constitutes a denial of freedom of the press under the Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and the Constitution of South Carolina, Article 1, Section 2,' seeks injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act of 1972. (Article 2.2, Code of 1962, Supplement)

The second cause of action, alleging that the Commission has unlawfully excluded employees of the newspaper from its meetings and denied them access to its minutes and records, seeks injunctive relief against these violations of the Freedom of Information Act.

The third cause of action, alleging that the Commission has assumed custody of the jail and its prisoners without statutory authority or under an unconstitutional statute, thus usurping the statutory duties of the County Sheriff and of City Council, seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the sheriff and council to perform their statutory duties by taking custody of the jail and of the county and city prisoners respectively.

As to the first cause of action, the answer of the Commission admits having closed the jail book to the public, including the press, but denies that this is in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

As to the second cause of action, the Commission denies having excluded plaintiff's representatives from its meetings or denied them access to its minutes, except for the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1974, and alleges this was done only after plaintiffs had declared their intention to challenge by this litigation the action taken at that meeting.

As to the third cause of action, the Commission alleges that it is authorized by the statute creating it and by the contract between the City, County and Commission to operate and maintain the joint jail facilities.

The remaining defendants filed answers of similar import.

After hearing the testimony, the circuit judge filed an order in which he found that the jail book is a public record within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act and that closing it against inspection by plaintiff's representatives and others was a violation of the Act.

However, instead of directing that the book be made available for inspection, the judge further found:

'I agree with the Building Commission that the presence of the plaintiffs and other members of the general public in the area where the records in question are now kept is not in the best interest of the security and maintenance of the Florence Detention Center. The Commission was well within its authority in passing a rule excluding the plaintiffs and members of the general public from that area. On the other hand, the Commission should take action to make these records available to the plaintiffs and members of the public who desire to see them at some other reasonable time and place. I would suggest that the records be copied on a daily basis and that the plaintiffs and other interested members of the public be allowed to view said copies in the office of the Building Commission or in some other designated place in the Florence City-County Complex. This would constitute a reasonable and legal exercise by the Building Commission of its obligation to promulgate rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance of the Florence Detention Center.'

As to the second cause of action, the Court found that the Commission is a public agency within the meaning of the Act and that, with the exceptions enumerated therein, its meetings and records must be open to the public. However, the Court found that the violations alleged in this cause of action had not been proved; that only with respect to the meeting of December 12, 1974, were plaintiffs' representatives denied the right to attend or to inspect the minutes of a meeting; that this meeting was held after the commencement of the action, and that, since the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Commission's legal defense, the exclusion of plaintiffs' representatives was permitted by Section 1--20.3(b) of the Act as codified. In so finding, the Court inadvertently overlooked the admission of the answer with respect to the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1974, and the testimony of the chairman of the Commission thereabout.

As to the third cause of action, the Court held that control of the jail and of its prisoners was lawfully vested in the Commission by the 1966 Act creating it and by the contract...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Sloan v. Greenville County, 3704.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2003
    ...29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992); Blandon v. Coleman, 285 S.C. 472, 475, 330 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1985); Florence Morning News v. Bldg. Comm'n, 265 S.C. 389, 398, 218 S.E.2d 881, 884-85 (1975); Carolina Alliance for Fair Employment v. South Carolina Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 337 S.......
  • CAFE v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING, 3061.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 25, 1999
    ...S.C. 472, 330 S.E.2d 298 (1985) and Myers v. Patterson, 315 S.C. 248, 433 S.E.2d 841 (1993)). See also Florence Morning News v. Building Comm'n, 265 S.C. 389, 218 S.E.2d 881 (1975). Such imminent prejudice must be of a personal nature to the party laying claim to standing and not merely of ......
  • Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dept., 3771.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 5, 2004
    ...prohibiting a public body from holding future secret meetings in violation of FOIA); Florence Morning News, Inc. v. Building Comm'n of City and County of Florence, 265 S.C. 389, 218 S.E.2d 881 (1975) (upholding trial court's injunction prohibiting defendants from interfering with the plaint......
  • Burton v. York County Sheriff's Department, Opinion No. 3771 (S.C. App. 4/5/2004), Opinion No. 3771.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 5, 2004
    ...prohibiting a public body from holding future secret meetings in violation of FOIA); Florence Morning News, Inc. v. Building Comm'n of City and County of Florence, 265 S.C. 389, 218 S.E.2d 881 (1975) (upholding trial court's injunction prohibiting defendants from interfering with the plaint......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT