Rose v. D'Alessandro
| Decision Date | 17 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 55694,55694 |
| Parties | Mary Ann ROSE, Petitioner, v. Joseph P. D'ALESSANDRO, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James R. Long, Fort Myers, for petitioner.
Joseph P. D'Alessandro, State's Atty., Louis S. St. Laurent, Chief Asst. State's Atty., and Radford R. Sturgis, Asst. State's Atty., Fort Myers, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Rose v. D'Alessandro, 364 So.2d 763 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), which conflicts with our recent decision in Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979). The Second District, for public policy reasons, held that complaints or affidavits received by a state attorney in the discharge of his investigatory duties are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. In Wait, however, we held that chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1975), exempts from public disclosure only those public records that are provided by statutory law to be confidential or which are expressly exempted by general or special law.
The district court in the present case expressed great concern over the critical importance to the public of keeping statements, allegations, charges, complaints, or other products of a state attorney's investigation confidential. We recognize the validity of this concern, but, as we said in Wait, courts may not pass upon the wisdom of legislative determinations.
Since our decision in Wait, the legislature has recognized the necessity for exemptions from the Public Records Act for investigative police reports and has adopted chapter 79-187, Laws of Florida (1979), which amended section 119.07 to add the following pertinent exemptions:
(2) . . .
(c) Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(d) Any information revealing the identity of confidential informants or sources is exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(e) Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(f) Any information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency is exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(g) Any criminal intelligence information or criminal investigative information including the photograph, name, address or other fact or information which reveals the identity of the victim of any sexual battery as defined by Chapter 794 or child abuse as defined by Chapter 827 is exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(h) Any criminal intelligence information or criminal investigative information which reveals the personal assets of the victim of a crime, other than property stolen or destroyed during the commission of the crime, is exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(i) All criminal intelligence and criminal investigative information received by a criminal justice agency prior to January 25, 1979, is exempt from the provisions of subsection (1).
(j) After December 31, 1980, all criminal intelligence and criminal investigative information received by a criminal justice agency prior to January 25, 1979, which is not active shall be open to the person to whom the record pertains unless the information is exempted by paragraphs (d), (e), or (f) of this subsection or relates to any other person.
(k) Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt from subsection (1) records made part of a court file and not specifically closed by order of court except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of subsection (2).
(l) The provisions of this section are not intended to expand or limit the provisions of Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding the right and extent of discovery by the state and a defendant in a criminal prosecution.
(n) The home address, telephone number and photograph of law enforcement personnel; the home address, telephone number,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forsberg v. Housing Authority of City of Miami Beach
...our examination of the statutes has brought to light no exemption pertaining to the records involved in this appeal. See Rose v. D'Alessandro, 380 So.2d 419 (Fla.1980); Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979). There is, likewise, no state constitutional right of privacy ......
-
Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary
...those specified by the legislature. Accord City of North Miami v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 468 So.2d 218 (Fla.1985); Rose v. D'Alessandro, 380 So.2d 419 (Fla.1980). Based on this case law and chapter 119, the press takes an absolutist position. First, it argues, the defendants here have......
-
Housing Authority of City of Daytona Beach v. Gomillion, 93-2900
...our examination of the statutes has brought to light no exemption pertaining to the records involved in this appeal. See Rose v. D'Alessandro, 380 So.2d 419 (Fla.1980); Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979). There is, likewise, no state constitutional right of privacy ......
-
Douglas v. Michel
...by refraining from carving out any judicial exceptions, no matter how harmful and damaging the disclosure might be. See Rose v. D'Alessandro, 380 So.2d 419 (Fla.1980); Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979); Gannett Co. v. Goldtrap, 302 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The......