Napper v. Georgia Television Co., WSB-TV
| Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 44381,WSB-TV,44381 |
| Citation | 356 S.E.2d 640,257 Ga. 156 |
| Parties | , 14 Media L. Rep. 1075 NAPPER v. GEORGIA TELEVISION COMPANY, d/b/aet al |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Keegan Federal, Jr., Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Joseph R. Bankoff, Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., King & Spalding, Atlanta, for Georgia Television Company, d/b/a WSB-TV, et al.
This suit was instituted by the appellees-plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant under the Open Records Act. OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq. The appellees in this case consist of Georgia Television Company, d/b/a WSB-TV; The Atlanta Journal; The Atlanta Constitution; and ABC News, Inc. The appellant is George Napper, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Atlanta. In that capacity, he has custody of the investigatory case files compiled by the Task Force formed to investigate what has become known world-wide as "The Atlanta Child Murders." The appellant has refused the appellees' request that they be given access to these files. As a result, the appellees have filed this suit in which they
seek to enjoin the appellant from refusing to make these files open to public inspection. The trial judge conducted an in-camera inspection of the files, and then issued orders compelling the disclosure of some of the files in their entirety and the disclosure of other files with limited deletions. The orders were consolidated for appeal, and supersedeas was granted by us pending an expedited appellate review.
The homicides constituting the Atlanta child murders took place between July of 1979 and May of 1981. During this time period, a series of 30 murders of black youths occurred in metropolitan Atlanta. Because of the extraordinary public concern and fear resulting from these murders, the Atlanta Metropolitan Task Force on Missing and Murdered Children (referred to hereinafter as the Task Force) was formed to investigate these murders.
In May of 1981, Wayne Williams was arrested and indicted for the murders of two of the missing and murdered children, Nathaniel Cater and Jimmy Ray Payne. During the Williams trial, the prosecution introduced evidence from ten additional cases of other missing and murdered children in an attempt to demonstrate a "pattern" among these ten murders and the Cater and Payne murders. (These ten additional cases will be referred to hereinafter as the "pattern" cases.) Evidence from the investigative files of the remaining murders played no role in the Williams trial. (The remaining cases will be referred to hereinafter as the "other" cases.) After a nine-week trial, which was concluded on February 27, 1982, Williams was convicted of the Cater and Payne murders. (The Cater and Payne cases will be referred to hereinafter as the "conviction" cases.) Wayne Williams' conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal in Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983).
Shortly after the conviction of Wayne Williams for the Cater and Payne murders, the Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Atlanta, who at the time was Mr. Lee Brown, announced at a press conference that 22 "pattern" and "other" cases had been "cleared" as a result of Wayne Williams' conviction for the Cater and Payne murders. Use of the term "cleared" in this context means that the investigations were concluded and that no further investigations would be undertaken. The documents clearing these cases indicate that the Task Force had gathered sufficient evidence to identify the murderer in each case as Wayne Williams. Task Force Commander Willie J. Taylor testified that these cases were "exceptionally cleared" under Task Force regulations, because the District Attorney for Fulton County decided not to prosecute Williams for these crimes in light of his conviction of the Cater and Payne murders.
After the Task Force was disbanded, the investigative files concerning the missing and murdered children were transported to the Atlanta Bureau of Police Services, placed in the appellant's custody, and sealed in a locked vault. These closed investigative files have remained in the sealed vault for the last five years.
On January 8, 1987, the appellees instituted this suit in the Fulton Superior Court. In this suit, the appellees seek access to the investigative files concerning the two "conviction" cases and 21 1 "pattern" and "other" cases. The appellant voluntarily produced to the appellees the investigative file in one of the "pattern" cases, that of Mr. Joseph Drolet, of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, gave deposition testimony in this case that "[t]here exists at this point an open prosecution file in regard to the prosecution of Wayne Williams, a file which has remained open since the prosecution began and which contains all pertinent material, including pattern cases and potential pattern cases and the cases, of course, of Mr. Payne and Mr. Cater, and that is still maintained as an open prosecution file at this time." Mr. Drolet further testified that if a retrial is ordered in Wayne Williams' habeas-corpus proceedings, it would be necessary to review the evidence in the "conviction" cases, "pattern" cases, and "other" cases. In addition, he testified that he would attempt to update and continue in the investigation and supplement any investigation.
Charles Stephens. The appellant refused to produce the remainder of the investigative files from the "conviction" and "pattern" cases, on the ground that these files were related to open investigations during the pendency of a habeas-corpus petition filed by Wayne Williams in the Butts Superior Court. The appellant refused to produce the files in the "other" cases until the trial court conducted an in-camera inspection of these files for the purpose of deleting information, the public disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of privacy.
The superior court directed the appellant to submit the investigative files in 11 of the "other" cases for an in-camera inspection by the court. 2 Prior to submitting the files to the trial court for an in-camera inspection, the appellant reviewed the files and identified those portions of the files which in the appellant's view should not be disclosed by marking the page with numbered tabs and highlighting the information. In addition, a summary of proposed deletions is included in the files.
After a hearing, the superior court ordered the appellant to submit the files in the "conviction" and "pattern" cases to the court for an in-camera inspection, on grounds that "the pendency of Wayne Williams' habeas corpus petition does not justify a blanket nondisclosure of these files [and] ... [e]ven if these cases could be viewed as pending ... the public interest in favor of disclosure outweighs the public interest in justifying a blanket nondisclosure." As to the files in the "other" cases, the superior court--after conducting a page-by-page in-camera inspection, and after "balancing the interests involved and considering all matters required by Harris v. Cox, 256 Ga. 299 (1986),"--ordered the appellant to disclose eight of these files in their entirety and four of these files with limited deletions.
In this appeal, the appellant has filed three enumerations of error, to wit: (1) The superior court erred in concluding that the pendency of Wayne Williams' state habeas-corpus petition does not warrant exemption of files related to the two cases on which Williams was convicted and the ten cases used during his trial to establish a pattern. (2) The superior court erred in ordering disclosure of certain categories of information which are exempt from disclosure under Georgia statutes. (3) The superior court erred in ordering disclosure of information which infringes upon the privacy rights of individuals whose names, addresses, and other personal information appear in the files requested by the appellees.
(a) Where there is a request for disclosure of documents under the Public (b) If the documents are found to be "public records," the second inquiry is: (A) whether they are within the exceptions to disclosure set forth in OCGA § 50-18-72(a) (); or (B) whether under OCGA § 50-18-70(a) they are otherwise protected from disclosure by court order or by statute.
Records Act, the first inquiry is whether the records are "public records." "[D]ocuments, papers, and records prepared and maintained in the course of the operation of a public office are 'public records' within the meaning of this statute ..." Houston v. Rutledge, 237 Ga. 764, 765, 229 S.E.2d 624 (1976).
(c) In Doe v. Sears, 245 Ga. 83, 263 S.E.2d 119 (1980), we were called upon to determine the meaning of § 50-18-72 (a)'s exemption with respect to "medical or veterinary records or similar files, the disclosure of which would be an invasion of privacy." There, we held, "Whatever may be the outside limits of the rights of personal privacy to which that section refers, this court cannot accept [the] contention that 'similar files' must relate in some respect to the history, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or result of disease or other medical condition. Properly construed, the section forbids disclosure to the general public from [public] records or files of any information which would invade the constitutional, statutory or common-law rights of ... privacy. See Brown v. Minter, 243 Ga. 397 [254 S.E.2d 326 (1979) ]. 245 Ga. at p. 86, 263 S.E.2d 119.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swickard v. Wayne County Medical Examiner
...control the application of statutory privacy exemptions under the FOIA." Id. at 198-199, 585 A.2d 96.See also Napper v. Georgia Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 356 S.E.2d 640 (1987).63 See text immediately preceding n. 52. When invoked, this exemption appears to be absolute and not to permit b......
-
Cleskey v. Zant
...to police-investigative files until six years after McCleskey's first federal habeas proceeding. See generally Napper v. Georgia Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 356 S.E.2d 640 (1987). This fact, too, is missing from the majority's 12 The majority gratuitously characterizes Worthy's testimony a......
-
Smith v. Northside Hosp., Inc.
...omitted)); accord Martinez v. State, 325 Ga.App. 267, 273(2), 750 S.E.2d 504 (2013).14 OCGA § 50–18–71(a).15 Napper v. Ga. Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 160(a), 356 S.E.2d 640 (1987) ; accord Nw. Ga. Health Sys., Inc. v. Times–Journal, Inc., 218 Ga.App. 336, 338(1), 461 S.E.2d 297 (1995) ; s......
-
Phillips v. Consol. Publ'g Co., CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-069
...and records protected from disclosure by statute or court order. O.C.G.A. §§ 50-18-70 (a), -72(a)(2); see also Napper v. Ga. Television Co., 356 S.E.2d 640, 644 (Ga. 1987). Plaintiff appears to further rely on a provision of the Open Records Act providing that a person who obtains records r......
-
Administrative Law - Mark H. Cohen and David C. Will
...128, 130 (1980). 137. See Harris v. Cox Enter., 256 Ga. 299, 299-300, 348 S.E.2d 448, 449 (1986). 138. Napper v. Georgia Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 160, 356 S.E.2d 640, 644 (1987). 139. 231 Ga. App. at 53, 497 S.E.2d at 636. 140. 1999 Ga. Laws 552; 1999 Ga. Laws 809; 1999 Ga. Laws 1222 (e......