Pagel v. Franscell

• Decision Date: 19 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-201.,01-201.
• Parties: Tom PAGEL, as Director of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, and as Official Custodian of Certain Concealed Firearm Permit Records, Appellant (Petitioner), v. Ann FRANSCELL, and the Gillette News Record, upon their request for Certain Concealed Firearm Permit Records, Appellees (Respondents).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

57 P.3d 1226

2002 WY 169

Tom PAGEL, as Director of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, and as Official Custodian of Certain Concealed Firearm Permit Records, Appellant (Petitioner), v. Ann FRANSCELL, and the Gillette News Record, upon their request for Certain Concealed Firearm Permit Records, Appellees (Respondents).

No. 01-201.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 19, 2002.

Hoke MacMillan, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; Hugh Kenny, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Bryan A. Skoric, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and T. Alan Elrod, Assistant Attorney General, Representing Appellant. Argument by Messrs. Skoric and Elrod.

Michael J. Krampner of Krampner, Fuller, and Hambrick, Casper, WY, Representing Appellees. Argument by Mr. Krampner.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN,¹ KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

LEHMAN, Justice.

[¶ 1] This is an appeal from an order of the district court requiring appellant Tom Pagel, as director of appellant Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (collectively DCI), to provide a list of all people living within Campbell County possessing a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon under Wyoming law to appellee Ann Franscell, as editor-in-chief of appellee Gillette News Record (collectively Newspaper). We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] DCI sets forth the following issues on appeal:

I. Did the district court err as a matter of law in denying appellant's Rule 59 motion, where the intervening change in the controlling law, with its clear retroactivity clause, necessitated either a new trial or an amendment of the district court's order of March 21, 2001?

II. Did the district court err as a matter of law in holding that the names of concealed firearm permit holders were subject to release under the concealed firearm permit statute, Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-104?

III. Did the district court err as a matter of law by failing to apply the Public Records Act in determining whether appellant was entitled to refuse to disclose the records that appellees requested?

IV. Did the district court err as a matter of law by ordering appellant to disclose the names of concealed firearm permit holders, where those orders mandate appellant to violate both state and federal law?

Newspaper phrases the issues on appeal as:

I. Did the district court err in deciding that the Wyoming Public Records Act required access to the list of persons to whom concealed weapons permits had been issued, by applying the law which was in effect both on the day the records were requested and on the day the case was decided?

II. After a case between two parties has been decided, can the Legislature alter the decision in that case by changing the law "retroactively," consistent with the "separation of powers" doctrine and W.S. § 8-1-107, when the words of the statutory amendment itself require a different result?

FACTS

[¶ 3] On September 19, 2000, Newspaper requested that DCI provide a list of all people living within Campbell County who had a valid permit or license to carry a concealed weapon under Wyoming state law. On October 3, 2000, DCI denied Newspaper's request indicating the language within Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-104(n) (Lexis 1999) allowed release of the requested information solely to Wyoming law enforcement agencies and, notwithstanding that language, release of the information would do substantial injury to the public interest. DCI also indicated release of the information would be contrary to the very purpose of the concealed firearm statute since it would directly subvert an individual's right to conceal from the public at large whether that individual was armed.

[¶ 4] On the same date of DCI's denial, DCI filed an action in the district court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-203(g) (Lexis 1999), which allows a custodian to petition the court for an order restricting disclosure of a requested record, even if the record may be otherwise available to the public. DCI asserted the requested records were not public records but, even in the event they were considered public records, release would do substantial injury to the public interest. Immediately after a February 1, 2001 hearing, the district court orally ordered DCI to release the names of concealed permit holders in Campbell County to Newspaper but offered to stay the enforcement pending appeal since the court recognized the potential for irreparable harm. Shortly after the hearing, Newspaper submitted a proposed order to DCI for approval. DCI refused to approve this proposed order and requested that a transcript of the hearing be prepared for review. Upon review of the transcript, DCI objected to the proposed order pursuant to W.R.C.P. 58 on February 21, 2001.

[¶ 5] During this time frame, § 6-8-104 was amended to mandate that no lists or other records maintained by DCI or other law enforcement agencies, which identified an individual who concealed a firearm through permit, were to be considered a public record. This amendment also specified that it was to have retroactive effect concerning all records regarding the application and issuance of concealed firearm permits and became effective on February 20, 2001. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-104 (LexisNexis 2001).

[¶ 6] On March 21, 2001, the district court entered its order in the form presented by Newspaper requiring DCI to disclose the requested information but staying enforcement of the order pending appeal. On April 2, 2001, DCI filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the district court's previously entered order. On June 15, 2001, the district court held a hearing concerning this motion and requested additional briefing. After considering this additional briefing, the district court entered an order denying DCI's motion. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 7] A hearing was held with the district court issuing specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its recently published case of Hutchings v. Krachun, 2002 WY 98, ¶ 10, 49 P.3d 176, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2002), this court reiterated our standard of review:

The purpose of specific findings of fact is to inform the appellate court of the underlying facts supporting the trial court's conclusions of law and disposition of the issues. Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo.1993). While the findings of fact made by a trial court are presumptively correct, we examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Because this court does not weigh the evidence de novo, findings may not be set aside because we would have reached a different result. Rather, the appellant has the burden of persuading the appellate court that the finding is erroneous. Id. See also Maycock v. Maycock, 2001 WY 103, ¶ 11, 33 P.3d 1114,

¶ 11 (Wyo.2001). Findings of fact are not set aside unless inconsistent with the evidence, clearly erroneous, or contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The definitive test of when a finding of fact is clearly erroneous is when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. A determination that a finding is against the great weight of the evidence means that a finding will be set aside even if supported by substantial evidence. Id. See also Mathis v. Wendling, 962 P.2d 160, 163 (Wyo.1998). Conclusions of law made by the trial court are not binding on this court and are reviewed de novo.

Maycock, ¶ 12.

(Emphasis added.)

DISCUSSION

[¶ 8] In its second issue raised on appeal, DCI asserts that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to correctly interpret the Public Records Act (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-201 et seq.) in conjunction with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-104 in determining that the records requested by Newspaper were public records. Specifically, DCI contends that the correct interpretation of Wyoming law is that these records are not public records and public inspection is thereby prohibited.

[¶ 9] In the case of Wyoming Cmty. College Comm'n v. Casper Cmty. College Dist., 2001 WY 86, ¶¶ 16-18, 31 P.3d 1242, ¶¶ 16-18 (Wyo.2001), we set forth:

In interpreting statutes, our primary consideration is to determine the legislature's intent. Fontaine v. Board of County Comm'rs, 4 P.3d 890, 894 (Wyo.2000); State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732, 736 (Wyo.1983). Legislative intent must be ascertained initially and primarily from the words used in the statute. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 813 P.2d 214, 219 (Wyo. 1991); Phillips v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc., 806 P.2d 834, 837 (Wyo.1991). When the words are clear and unambiguous, a court risks an impermissible substitution of its own views, or those of others, for the intent of the legislature if any effort is made to interpret or construe statutes on any basis other than the language invoked by the legislature. Allied-Signal, 813 P.2d at 219. Moreover, "[a]ll statutes must be construed in pari materia; and in ascertaining the meaning of a given law, all statutes relating to the same subject or hav[ing] the same general purpose must be considered and construed in harmony." Fontaine, 4 P.3d at 894 (citing State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz, 674 P.2d at 735).

Therefore, in performing our review, we look first to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words to determine if the statute is ambiguous. Olheiser v. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Div., 866 P.2d 768, 770 (Wyo.1994) (citing Parker Land & Cattle Company v. Game & Fish Comm'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042-43 (Wyo.1993)). A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability. Parker Land & Cattle, at 1043. Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. Id. We have said that divergent opinions among parti

...