State ex rel. West Virginia State Police v. Taylor

Decision Date20 November 1997
Docket NumberNo. 24150.,24150.
Citation499 S.E.2d 283,201 W.Va. 554
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of West Virginia ex rel. The WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE, a governmental agency, and Director of the West Virginia State Police Criminal Records Section, Petitioners, v. Honorable C. Reeves TAYLOR, Judge of the Circuit Court of Mineral County; Marsha K. MILLS, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Terrance Lee Mills; Quality Supplier Trucking, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; and Roadway Express, Inc., a corporation, Respondents.

H.F. Salsbery, Madonna C. Estep, Salsbery & Druckman, Charleston, for Petitioners.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General Dolores A. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Respondents. STARCHER, Justice:

In this case, a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit issued a subpoena to the West Virginia State Police for the criminal record of the man who killed her husband. The killer, who is in prison for the crime, had refused to authorize the release of his criminal record. The Circuit Court of Mineral County required that the records be made available for the civil litigation.

We conclude that such a subpoena may be enforced only if there are exceptional circumstances. Because the record is not clear as to whether such circumstances exist in this case, we require the circuit court not to enforce the subpoena until the court applies the exceptional circumstances test set forth in this opinion.

I. Facts and Background

The petitioners, the West Virginia State Police and Sergeant T.A. Barrick, invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court by a writ of prohibition under the provisions of Article VIII, Section 3 of the West Virginia Constitution, and W.Va.Code, 53-1-2 [1933]. We proceed by first reviewing the positions of the parties to the instant proceeding.

A. Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners allege that:

1. Petitioner Sergeant Barrick is the supervisor in charge of the Criminal Identification Bureau ("CIB"), a division of the petitioner West Virginia State Police. The CIB is established pursuant to the provisions of W.Va.Code, 15-2-24(a) [1977].

2. The CIB operates a central state repository for the storage of fingerprints and other records of persons arrested or detained by law enforcement officers. This opinion will refer generally to such records as "criminal history record information."1 The CIB also has access to criminal history record information compiled by the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC"), a federal agency in the Department of Justice.

3. The respondent, Marsha K. Mills, is the plaintiff in a wrongful death suit in the Circuit Court of Mineral County, West Virginia.2 On February 6, 1997, the Circuit Court of Mineral County, pursuant to a request by respondent Mills, issued a subpoena duces tecum directing the petitioners to produce criminal history record information for Elijah Ruffin, Jr.

4. In response to the subpoena duces tecum, the petitioners filed a "Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum."

5. On April 23, 1997, in a brief order that did not include factual findings or a statement of reasons, the circuit court, following a telephonic hearing, denied the petitioners' motion to quash and ordered that the criminal history record information of Elijah Ruffin, Jr. be provided to the respondent Mills by the petitioners.

On June 18, 1997, this Court agreed to consider a writ of prohibition to review the circuit court's ruling on the petitioners' motion to quash.

The petitioners contend that respondent Mills is not entitled to obtain criminal history record information from the petitioners by means of a court order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum3 because such a method for obtaining such information is not authorized by the provisions of W.Va.Code, 15-2-24 [1977], which addresses the release of criminal history record information in subsections (c), (d) and (e).

Subsection (c) of W.Va.Code, 15-2-24 [1977] authorizes the release of such information to law enforcement and governmental agencies which request the information:

The criminal identification bureau may furnish fingerprints, photographs, records or other information to authorized law-enforcement and governmental agencies of the United States and its territories, ... upon proper request stating that the fingerprints, photographs, records or other information requested are necessary in the interest of and will be used solely in the administration of official duties and the criminal laws. (Emphasis added.)

Petitioners note that respondent Mills is neither a law enforcement or governmental agency; nor does she have the intention to use the information sought about Elijah Ruffin, Jr. for the administration of official duties and criminal laws.

Subsection (d) of W.Va.Code, 15-2-24 [1977] authorizes the release of criminal history record information upon request to entities or individuals other than law enforcement agencies or organizations:

The criminal identification bureau may furnish, with the approval of the superintendent, fingerprints, photographs, records or other information to any private or public agency, person, firm, association, corporation or other organization, ... but all requests ... for such fingerprints, photographs, records or other information must be accompanied by a written authorization signed and acknowledged by the person whose fingerprints, photographs, records or other information is to be released. (Emphasis added.)

Petitioners state that respondent Mills has not supplied the petitioners with Mr. Ruffin's written authorization to release information about him.

Subsection (e) of W.Va.Code, 15-2-24 [1977] authorizes the release of criminal history record information to federal and state identification bureaus for "the purpose of aiding law enforcement:"

The criminal identification bureau may furnish fingerprints, photographs, records and other information of persons arrested or sought to be arrested in this State to the identification bureau of the United States government and to other states for the purpose of aiding law enforcement. (Emphasis added).

Petitioners note that respondent Mills is an individual plaintiff in a civil case, and not a law enforcement identification bureau.

In summary, petitioners say that the release of Mr. Ruffin's criminal history record information to respondent Mills pursuant to a court order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum is barred by state law, because Ms. Mills does not fall within one of the three categories of persons or entities listed in W.Va.Code, 15-2-24 [1977] that may obtain such information.

The petitioners also contend that the federal regulations which govern the dissemination of criminal history record information bar the release of the information to respondent Mills pursuant to a court order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum.

Petitioners cite to 28 C.F.R. 20.33 [1990], which states:

[C]riminal history record information contained in any Department of Justice criminal history record information system will be made available:
(1) To criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes; and
(2) To Federal agencies authorized to receive it pursuant to Federal statute or Executive order.
(3) Pursuant to Public Law 92-544 (86 Stat. 1115) for use in connection with licensing or local/state employment or for other uses only if such dissemination is authorized by Federal or state statutes and approved by the Attorney General of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

Since the West Virginia statute, W. Va.Code, 15-2-24 [1977], which delineates three categories of persons or entities that may obtain criminal record history information, does not provide for the release of criminal record history information pursuant to a court order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum, petitioners contend that 28 C.F.R. 20.33 [1990] prohibits the use of such a method for obtaining the information that respondent Mills seeks.

Petitioners conclude that the circuit court's denial of petitioners' motion to quash respondent Mills' subpoena duces tecum for the criminal history record information of Elijah Ruffin, Jr. was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.

B. Respondent's Contentions

In response to the petitioners' contentions, respondent Marsha K. Mills submits the following allegations and argument. We emphasize that we accept respondent Mills' factual allegations as substantially true only for purposes of our ruling in the instant case. Respondent states that:

1. The underlying action in the circuit court arises from the shooting death of the respondent Marsha Mills' husband, Terrance Lee Mills. At the time of his death, Terrance Mills was employed by Quality Supplier Trucking as an over-the-road truck driver.

2. At the time of the shooting, Elijah Ruffin, whose criminal history record information is being sought by the respondent, was employed by Roadway Trucking Company as an over-the-road truck driver. Ruffin was subsequently convicted of manslaughter in Terrance Mills' death.4 The shooting occurred after an argument between the truck drivers which began on citizens' band radio. Ruffin also shot at Mills' fellow employee, Richard A. Bryan, who was "running" with Mills in a separate truck; Bryan was not injured.5

3. During the sentencing phase of Ruffin's trial, respondent Mills became aware of certain information concerning Ruffin's past criminal conduct. Subsequently respondent Mills, individually and as executrix of her late husband's estate, filed a wrongful death suit against Roadway Trucking Company,6 alleging inter alia the negligent hiring of Elijah Ruffin.7

4. Respondent Mills believes that Ruffin's criminal history includes but is not limited to: (a) another manslaughter conviction; (b) assault with intent to murder; and (c) multiple weapons possession charges.8

5. Respondent Mills' counsel was advised by Ruffin's prison case manager that Ruffin's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Weigle v. Pifer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 14 Octubre 2015
    ...... as an officer with the City of Vienna Police Department, and Brian Ingraham, individually and ... Department, a political subdivision of the State of West Virginia, and the City of Vienna, a ..., The Masters Law Firm, Jennifer Narog Taylor, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff. Cy A. Hill, Jr., ... 502 (1998)(per curiam), see also State ex rel. W. Virginia State Police v. Taylor , 201 W.Va. ......
  • State ex rel. Brison v. Kaufman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 13 Junio 2003
    ... 584 S.E.2d 480 213 W.Va. 624 STATE of West Virginia ex rel. M. Andrew BRISON and Rebecca Stepto, Petitioners . v. . ...West Virginia State Police v. Taylor, 201 W.Va. 554, 562, 499 S.E.2d 283, 291 (1997) ; syl. pt. 2, ......
  • W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A. B.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 31 Octubre 2014
    ... WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY, an agency of the State of West Virginia, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. ...W. Va. State Police , 227 W. Va. 472, 711 S.E.2d 542 (2010). 2. The ... cases relied upon by respondent, State ex rel. W. Va. State Police v. Taylor , 201 W. Va. 554, ......
  • Heslep v. Americans for African Adoption, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • 27 Agosto 2012
    ...v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 202 W.Va. 189, 503 S.E.2d 502, 506–07 (1998); and State ex rel. West Virginia State Police v. Taylor, 201 W.Va. 554, 499 S.E.2d 283, 289 n. 7 (1997). In determining whether a defendant has negligently hired and retained an employee, the Court should consider ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT