Gannett Co., Inc. v. Board of Managers
| Citation | 840 A.2d 1232 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 77,2003.,77,2003. |
| Parties | GANNETT CO., INC., Defendant Below, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE DELAWARE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, an Agency of the State of Delaware, Ronald J. Torgeson, Executive Director of the Board, State Bureau of Identification, an Agency of the State of Delaware, and Captain David F. Deputy, Director of the State Bureau of Identification Plaintiffs Below, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Richard G. Elliott, Jr., Esquire (argued), and Jennifer C. Jauffret, Esquire, of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
W. Michael Tupman, Esquire, Department of Justice, Dover, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. VEASEY, Chief Justice.
In this appeal we review a declaratory judgment authorizing the release of certain information and prohibiting the release of other information to a media entity from the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System (DELJIS). The Superior Court declared that DELJIS should not release non-conviction data, geographic information, or police officer identification information. We have determined that the trial court erroneously decided issues that were not before it when it prevented release of non-conviction data and geographic information. We therefore vacate the Superior Court's judgment with respect to those issues.
In addition, the Superior Court incorrectly applied the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to refuse the release of police officer identification information. We, therefore, reverse the portion of the trial court's judgment pertaining to that type of information.
Finally, we affirm the Superior Court's award of partial attorneys' fees to Gannett Co. In doing so, we reject both the media entity's contention in its appeal that all its attorneys' fees should be awarded and the contention of DELJIS in its cross-appeal that no attorneys' fees should have been allowed.
Since 1997, Gannett Co. (through its local media entity, the News Journal) has sought information from the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System in order to study the state's criminal justice system. DELJIS denied the News Journal's first request for data, and the News Journal sued in an effort to compel release of the data.1 The Superior Court held that the News Journal may be entitled to some information but that its then-300-category request was too broad.2
The Superior Court concluded that information that could be used, either directly or indirectly, to recreate an individual's criminal history should not be released.3 As a result, in 2000 the News Journal submitted a new request to DELJIS for information, paring down the number of requested data fields to fewer than 200. All direct identifiers were excluded. Four indirect identifiers remained: age, race, sex, and county of residence.
On January 25, 2001, the full DELJIS board unanimously voted to provide the News Journal with the fields requested, with a few exceptions. The Board voted to exclude the requested CJIS, SBI, and defendant identification fields, and not to provide fictitious linking numbers.4 The Board also voted not to provide the names of police, probation, and parole officers, but instead to provide their identification numbers in "scrambled" form. Finally, the Board voted to file a complaint for a declaratory judgment by the Superior Court, asking that Court to decide whether DELJIS was required to release SBI, CJIS, or defendant identification information.
DELJIS filed the declaratory judgment action the same day. The issues presented to the trial court were whether the contested data fields constituted criminal history information as defined by Chapter 85 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code (Chapter 85) and whether the use of linking numbers would invade privacy and therefore constitute an exception under Title 29, Section 10002(d)(4) of the Delaware Code5 and Chapter 85. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Superior Court denied both motions.6 The Court itself framed the issue remaining for determination as follows: "whether the News Journal could take vertical criminal histories and cross reference them with other sources to determine names to correspond with the vertical histories."7
The Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing in the declaratory judgment action in February and April 2002. The parties presented the testimony of several expert witnesses, police officers, and newspaper personnel. After hearing the experts' testimony on linking numbers, the Court found that the experts agreed that "all the information that the News Journal is requesting is a matter of public record" and that The Court then considered whether vertical histories could be cross-referenced with other sources, such as newspaper articles or an arrest warrant database, to link names with the vertical histories.
The Superior Court held that the News Journal was entitled to receive the linking numbers because re-identification is not possible using such numbers.8 It limited the information that could be released to the News Journal, however, to data relating to convictions. Data relating to cases in which no conviction was obtained were not to be disclosed. In addition, the court excluded release of geographic information and police officer information.9
The News Journal moved for reargument, arguing that the non-conviction data and geographic information fields had not been presented for decision by the court because DELJIS had already agreed to release those fields. The News Journal also requested attorneys' fees pursuant to FOIA, claiming the award as the prevailing party on the linking numbers issue. The Superior Court denied the motion for reargument and granted in part the News Journal's request for attorneys' fees.
The News Journal appeals, challenging the Superior Court's judgment with respect to the geographic information, non-conviction data, and police officer information fields. The News Journal also appeals the Superior Court's partial award of attorneys' fees. DELJIS cross-appeals, challenging the award of attorneys' fees to the News Journal.
The parties raise seven issues for the Court's consideration in this appeal and cross-appeal:
(1) Whether the Superior Court improperly denied the News Journal access to non-conviction data and geographic information because the parties never raised those issues before the court;
(2) Whether the Superior Court's denial of access to the non-conviction data and geographic information violated the separation of powers doctrine;
(3) Whether the Superior Court's decision to prohibit release of the geographic information was clearly erroneous;
(4) Whether the Superior Court erred in its interpretation of Title 11, Chapter 85 of the Delaware Code;
(5) Whether Title 11, Section 8513 of the Delaware Code, as applied by the Superior Court, violates the News Journal's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of the press and equal protection of the laws;
(6) Whether the Superior Court erred by concluding that release of law enforcement officers' names and identification numbers would violate the officers' privacy;
(7) Whether the Superior Court erred by awarding the News Journal partial attorneys' fees.
We conclude that in denying the News Journal access to non-conviction data and geographic information, the Superior Court exceeded the scope of the issues presented to it. We therefore vacate the Superior Court's judgment to the extent that it prohibits the release to the News Journal of the non-conviction data and the geographic information. We also conclude that the Superior Court incorrectly applied FOIA to the police officer information sought by the News Journal. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court to the extent that it prohibits the release of police officer identification information. Finally, we hold that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the News Journal partial attorneys' fees. Because of our disposition of the above issues, we do not reach the remaining questions raised in this appeal and cross-appeal.
The News Journal contends that the Superior Court decided issues that were not before it when the court declared that DELJIS should not release the non-conviction data or any geographic information. DELJIS responds that even if its complaint did not put in issue the non-conviction data and the geographic information, the scope of the issues before the court is defined by all the pleadings. DELJIS contends that the News Journal raised the release of the non-conviction data and the geographic data as issues for the trial court's consideration.
This Court reviews for abuse of discretion the Superior Court's decision to exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction over a case.10 This case presents the issue whether the Superior Court exceeded the scope of the issues raised before it, however. The resolution of that question depends on the interpretation of the parties' pleadings and other briefings and arguments submitted to the trial court and thus is subject to de novo review.11
The Superior Court exceeded the scope of the issues presented to it by denying the News Journal access to non-conviction data and geographic information. In order for a court to exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction, there must be an "actual controversy":
"(1) It must be a controversy involving the rights or other legal relations of the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wolf v. Toyota Motor Corp., C.A. No. N11C-08-149-RRC
-
Energy Partners, Ltd. v. Stone Energy Corporation, Civil Action No. 2402-N (Del. Ch. 10/11/2006)
...Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 904 (Del. 1994)). 58. Rollins, 303 A.2d at 662-63. 59. See, e.g., Gannett Co. v. Bd. of Mgrs. for the Del. Crim. Just. Info. Sys., 840 A.2d 1232, 1237 (Del. 2003) (stating broad 60. Stroud, 552 A.2d at 480 (quoting Schtick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers U......
-
Dover Historical v. Dover Planning Com'n
...Dobler, 880 A.2d 206, 210 (Del.2005). 4. Chavin v. Cope, 243 A.2d 694, 695 (Del. 1968). 5. Gannett Co. v. Bd. of Managers of the Del. Criminal Justice Info. Sys., 840 A.2d 1232, 1240 n. 25 (Del.2003). 6. Chrysler Corp. v. Dann, 223 A.2d 384, 386 7. Tandycrafts, Inc. v. Initio Partners, 562 ......
-
State v. Binaird
...v. Gannett Co., 2003 WL 1579170, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2003), aff'd in part sub nom. Gannett Co. v. Bd. of Managers of the Delaware Criminal Justice Info. Sys., 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003); Cummings v. Jimmy's Grille, 2000 WL 1211167, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 9, 2000). 4. Kostyshyn v. Co......