Ogden Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Williamstown, 22098

• Decision Date: 15 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 22098,22098
• Citation: 192 W.Va. 648,453 S.E.2d 631
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: , 23 Media L. Rep. 1491 The OGDEN NEWSPAPERS, INC., d/b/a Parkersburg Sentinel Co., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. CITY OF WILLIAMSTOWN, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee.

Page 631

453 S.E.2d 631

192 W.Va. 648, 23 Media L. Rep. 1491

The OGDEN NEWSPAPERS, INC., d/b/a Parkersburg Sentinel Co., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. CITY OF WILLIAMSTOWN, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant

Below, Appellee.

No. 22098.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Submitted Sept. 20, 1994.

Decided Dec. 15, 1994.

Syllabus by the Court

1. To the extent that information in an incident report dealing with the detection and investigation of crime will not compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation, we hold that there is a public right of access under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

2. When incidents affecting public safety and welfare can be publicized without revealing the identities of juveniles involved by means other than the application of a blanket rule of nondisclosure, an incident report should be released to the press with the names of any juveniles (along with any information that could reasonably lead to the discovery of the identity of the juveniles) redacted; redaction offers the least intrusive means of protecting the identity of juveniles, while respecting the right of the public under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, W.Va.Code, 29B-1-1 [1977] et seq.

3. Broadly defining juvenile records to include redacted incident reports is not necessary to protect the identity of the juveniles and to preserve the confidentiality of their records.

Jacqueline A. Wilson, Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, for appellant.

Patrick E. McFarland, Hague & McFarland, Parkersburg, for appellee.

NEELY, Justice:

On 10 March 1993, The Parkersburg News, a division of Ogden Newspapers, Inc., made a written request under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ¹ to review the Williamstown Police Department's incident report of a 22 February 1993 fight between two juveniles involving a gun. The newspaper requested a redacted copy of the report--one that did not name the two juveniles. The newspaper's request was allegedly made in an effort to inform the public about incidents that impact the public safety and welfare. The newspaper asserts that it has historically been granted access to these documents.

The City denied the newspaper's request because the incident report was part of the file of a law enforcement agency, and because the requested information concerned juveniles. Based upon the City's denial, the newspaper filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the Circuit Court of Wood County, requesting that the court enjoin the City of Williamstown from withholding information contained in the police incident report, pursuant to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, W.Va.Code 29B-1-1 [1977] et seq. In response, the City proffered a Motion to Dismiss.

The Circuit Court granted the City's motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the requested incident report is exempted from disclosure under the law enforcement exemption to the Freedom of Information Act; and (2) the incident report is not a public record because the reported incident involves juveniles. This appeal followed. In view of the clear public policy in favor of the disclosure of public records, and the ability to release redacted documents to assure that information that might lead to the disclosure of the juveniles identities is not revealed, we reverse.

I.

The Circuit Court ruled that the police incident report requested by the press was not a public record subject to disclosure under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, W.Va.Code 29B-1-1 [1977] et seq. Although this presents an issue of first impression before the Court, we find the definition of "public record" in W.Va.Code 29B-1-3 [1992] to be plain and unambiguous. "Public record" as used in the Act is broadly defined as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business, prepared, owned and retained by a public body." W.Va.Code 29B-1-2(4) [1977].

The West Virginia Freedom of Information Act was adopted by the legislature in 1977. The purpose of the legislation is to open the workings of government to the public so that the electorate may be informed and retain control. W.Va.Code 29B-1-1 [1977]. In order to facilitate this purpose, this Court has stated on numerous occasions that the disclosure provisions of the FOIA are to be liberally construed. Daily Gazette Co. v. Caryl, 181 W.Va. 42, 380 S.E.2d 209 (1989); 4-H Road Community Ass'n v. WVU Foundation, Inc., 182 W.Va. 434, 388 S.E.2d 308 (1989); Queen v. West Virginia Univ. Hosps., Inc., 179 W.Va. 95, 365 S.E.2d 375 (1987).

West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") set forth in W.Va.Code 29B-1-1 [1977], et seq., provides in its declaration of policy:

Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government which holds to the principle that government is a servant of the people, and not the master of them, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of West Virginia that all persons are, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments of government they have created. To that end, the provisions of this article shall be liberally construed with the view of carrying out the above declaration of public policy.

[Emphasis added.] Accordingly, a liberal interpretation should be given to the definition of "public record."

In this case, given the significance of keeping the public informed on matters of general welfare, we find that police incident reports are "public records" as defined by W.Va.Code 29B-1-2 [1977]. As a rule, statutes enacted for the public good are to be interpreted in the public's favor. The public has an interest in receiving information about criminal activity within the community. Furthermore, the police are conducting "the public's business" when they respond to reported incidents of crime. The incident report was written by a public officer, who was authorized to do so, and the report was owned and retained by a public law enforcement agency. There is no doubt that the report in question is a "public record" within contemplation of the West Virginia FOIA.

Almost every state has some open records law similar to the West Virginia FOIA, and we are not alone in finding police incident reports to be public records subject to disclosure under Freedom of Information Act. Many jurisdictions considering this issue have also held that police incident reports are public records. ² Hengel v. Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457, 821 S.W.2d 761 (1991); Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. Borough of Seaside Heights, 246 N.J.Super. 62, 586 A.2d 870 (1990); State v. McDaniel, 504 So.2d 160 (La.1987); South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside, 160 Cal.App.3d 261, 206 Cal.Rptr. 527 (1984).

West Virginia has both statutory and common law bases allowing access to public records. The West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, W.Va.Code 29B-1-1 [1977] et seq.; State v. Harrison, 130 W.Va. 246, 43 S.E.2d 214 (1947); State ex rel. Charleston Mail Association v. Kelly, 149 W.Va. 766, 143 S.E.2d 136 (1965); Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. Withrow, 177 W.Va. 110, 350 S.E.2d 738 (1986). Although we find that the incident report at issue is a "public record", disclosure is still not required if the requested record falls within one of the exceptions to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

The FOIA states that "[e]very person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by section four [§ 29B-1-4] of this article." W.Va.Code 29B-1-3(1) [1992]. W.Va.Code 29B-1-4 [1977] states, in pertinent part:

The following categories of information are specifically exempt from disclosure under the provisions of this article:

. . . . .

(4) Records of law-enforcement agencies that deal with the detection and investigation of crime and the internal records and notations of such law-enforcement agencies which are maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement;

(5) Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute We shall address these two exceptions separately.

We previously addressed the law enforcement records exception in Hechler v. Casey, 175 W.Va. 434, 333 S.E.2d 799 (1985), albeit not specifically as applied to police incident reports. ³ In Hechler, we stated that primary purpose of the law enforcement exemption is "to prevent premature disclosure of investigatory materials which might be used in a law enforcement action." ⁴ Id. at 447, 333 S.E.2d at 812, quoting, Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 621, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 2059, 72 L.Ed.2d 376, 383 (1982). The meaning of the law enforcement exemption was clarified when we stated that:

"Records ... that deal with" the detection and investigation of crimes, within the meaning of W.Va.Code 29B-1-4(4) [1977], do not include information generated pursuant to routine administration or oversight, but is limited to information compiled as part of an inquiry into specific suspected violations of the law.

Hechler, 175 W.Va. at 447, 333 S.E.2d at 813.

The report sought by the newspaper in this case was prepared following an inquiry into a specific violation of the law; i.e., a fight between the two juveniles involving a gun. Therefore, the document sought by the newspaper was a law enforcement record within the meaning of the exemption. ⁵ In Hechler we noted that the state of Texas has an exemption worded identically to ours. ⁶ Hechler, 175 W.Va. at 448, 333 S.E.2d at 813. Similarly,...