In re the Raymond Gee And the Gee Family Homicide Investigation

• Decision Date: 18 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 4–10–0275.,4–10–0275.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: In re the Raymond GEE and the Gee Family Homicide Investigation,The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Christopher Harris, Intervenor–Appellee,andThe State Journal–Register, The Pantagraph, and The Herald & Review, Intervenors–Appellants.

2010 IL App (4th) 100,275
956 N.E.2d 460
353 Ill.Dec. 598

In re the Raymond GEE and the Gee Family Homicide Investigation,The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Christopher Harris, Intervenor–Appellee,andThe State Journal–Register, The Pantagraph, and The Herald & Review, Intervenors–Appellants.

No. 4–10–0275.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Dec. 8, 2010.Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 2011.

[956 N.E.2d 461]

Donald M. Craven, Donald M. Craven, P.C., Springfield, Esther J. Seitz (argued), Donald M. Craven, P.C., Springfield, for State Journal–Register.Michael McIntosh, State's Attorney, Lincoln, Patrick Delfino, Director, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, Anastacia R. Brooks (argued), Staff Attorney, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, for People.James E. Elmore, of Elmore & Reed, Matthew J. Maurer (argued), of Law Office of Matthew Maurer, and Patrick T. Timoney, of Timoney & Page, all of Springfield, for appellee Christopher Harris.[353 Ill.Dec. 599] OPINION Presiding Justice KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court with opinion:

¶ 1 On November 16, 2009, intervenors, the State Journal–Register, the Pantagraph, and the Herald & Review (collectively, media intervenors), filed a petition to intervene and gain access to a search warrant and attendant documents related to a homicide investigation into the murders of Raymond Gee and the Gee family. The trial court granted the petitions to intervene and, further, unsealed (1) the complaint and order for search warrant, (2) the search warrant, (3) the motion to seal the court file, (4) the order granting the motion, and (5) the docket sheet. An affidavit supporting the search warrant and an inventory and return of search warrant remained sealed.

¶ 2 Media intervenors appeal, arguing the trial court erred when it refused to unseal the affidavit and inventory. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On September 21, 2009, plaintiff, the People of the State of Illinois, secured a search warrant relating to the murders of Raymond Gee, Ruth Gee, Justina Constant, Dillen Constant, and Austin Gee, and the attempted murder of T.G., a minor. The complaint and order for search warrant, and all attendant documents, were impounded by the circuit clerk. On [353 Ill.Dec. 600]

[956 N.E.2d 462]

October 22, 2009, a return was made on the search warrant accompanied by an inventory of items seized pursuant to execution of the search warrant. The State moved to seal the contents of the court file, alleging public disclosure of the contents could jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation. The trial court allowed the motion and ordered the court file sealed for a period of 180 days.

¶ 5 On November 16, 2009, media intervenors (newspapers of general circulation in the area) sought to intervene and to vacate the trial court's order sealing the file. On November 18, 2009, the media intervenors were allowed to intervene and present arguments on their motion to vacate. The court ordered certain portions of the file to be unsealed and made available to the public, including the docket sheet, the motion to seal the court file (with certain license-plate information redacted), and the order allowing the motion. The court found the remaining contents of the file should remain sealed to protect the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation.

¶ 6 Prior to the entry of the written order, Christopher Harris (defendant) had been charged in Logan County case No. 09–CF–171 with the commission of the crimes. Defendant Harris then filed a petition to intervene and requested the contents of the search-warrant court file remain sealed. Defendant's filings asserted additional facts and arguments relative to the sealing issue, so the trial court ordered a rehearing on the motion to vacate earlier filed by the media intervenors.

¶ 7 On January 15, 2010, the trial court conducted a rehearing on the motion to vacate and a hearing on defendant's motion to seal and the media intervenors' motion to reconsider filed on December 23, 2009.

¶ 8 On March 24, 2010, the trial court entered a detailed 10–page order granting partial relief. Citing two federal cases finding a qualified first-amendment right of access to warrant records, the court found “the presumption of access extends to documents filed with the clerk of the court in this search [-] warrant case.”

¶ 9 The trial court next considered whether the presumption could be rebutted by demonstrating suppression is essential to preserve higher values. The court noted the “unique nature” of the crime, generating extensive media coverage. The court referenced “voluminous discovery” representing approximately 75% of what is anticipated from the various law-enforcement agencies. “Certainly much investigation remains to be done by the defense in these two cases.” The court concluded there was a substantial probability disclosure would compromise an ongoing investigation and defendant's right to a fair trial.

¶ 10 The trial court also balanced any right of access against the privacy right of the only surviving victim, a minor. “This court has a duty to protect the privacy interests of a minor * * * [and] must exercise great care when faced with a media petition for access in a case involving a minor.” The court noted what set this case apart “is the near certainty that the details will be published if they are disclosed, in addition to the magnitude of the risk such disclosure might have given that both defendants face a potential sentence of death.”

¶ 11 The trial court ruled documents previously unsealed would remain unsealed, including (1) the docket sheet, (2) the motion to seal the court file, and (3) the order granting the motion. Additionally, the court unsealed the complaint and order for search warrant and the search warrant.

[956 N.E.2d 463]

[353 Ill.Dec. 601] ¶ 12 The trial court next considered “alternatives to sealing” the (1) affidavit supporting the search warrant and (2) inventory and return of search warrant and found “redaction as the only possible alternative.” The court found redacting would serve no purpose because that would leave nothing of value or interest to be disclosed. The court ordered the affidavit supporting the search warrant and the inventory and return of the search warrant to remain sealed.

¶ 13 This appeal followed.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 Media intervenors argue the trial court erred when it refused access to the (1) affidavit supporting the search warrant and (2) inventory and return of search warrant. We disagree.

¶ 16 A. Jurisdiction Under Rule 307(a)(1)

¶ 17 The order granting media intervenors partial relief was in the nature of injunctive relief. This court has jurisdiction to entertain the media intervenors' interlocutory appeal. 188 Ill.2d R. 307(a)(1); see Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill.2d 214, 221–22, 246 Ill.Dec. 324, 730 N.E.2d 4, 11 (2000); see also People v. Wasilewski, 66 Ill.App.3d 1, 5–6, 22 Ill.Dec. 667, 383 N.E.2d 31, 34 (1978).

¶ 18 B. Standard of Review

¶ 19 Whether the presumption of public access applied to this particular type of court record or proceeding is a legal question we review de novo. People v. Kelly, 397 Ill.App.3d 232, 255, 336 Ill.Dec. 719, 921 N.E.2d...