Times Pub. Co. v. Burke
| Decision Date | 30 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-265,79-265 |
| Citation | 375 So.2d 297 |
| Parties | 5 Media L. Rep. 1301 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY and Jane Baumann, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Charles W. BURKE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George K. Rahdert, St. Petersburg, for petitioners.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Norton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
This is a petition for certiorari to review an order entered instanter which required a news reporter covering a hearing in a civil action to testify concerning pertinent information which she had gleaned in her investigation.
The pending action was a suit by certain members of John 3:16 Mission for an injunction prohibiting John Cook, the president and director of the mission, from selling mission property. The complaint alleged that Cook was absent from the state and that he was a fugitive from justice. Ms. Baumann, in her capacity as a reporter for The St. Petersburg Evening Independent, attended a 7:45 a. m. emergency hearing on a motion for temporary injunction. Following the close of the plaintiff's testimony, plaintiff's counsel commented on certain statements that Cook had purportedly made to Ms. Baumann when she called him in Oklahoma. Thereupon, the court ordered Ms. Baumann to answer, under oath, questions concerning the contents of her phone conversation with Cook. Ms. Baumann stated that she would happily answer the questions but that she first wished the opportunity to consult with an attorney. The court refused her request and directed her to respond immediately. Fearing the consequences of her failure to testify, Ms. Baumann answered the questions. Her testimony revealed that Cook had told her that he intended to sell the mission real estate in order to pay off his creditors. The court then entered a ten-day restraining order against the defendant.
Two days later, Ms. Baumann and her employer filed a motion for rehearing and reconsideration of the order compelling her to testify. After a hearing, the court found that Ms. Baumann's testimony concerning her conversation with Cook was relevant and that the exigencies of the situation had warranted requiring Ms. Baumann to testify because the facts known by her were not available from any other source. The court denied the motion for rehearing.
At the outset, we reject the suggestion to decline to consider this petition because the issues are moot. Even though Ms. Baumann has already disclosed the requested information, the matters involved are of substantial public interest, and our opinion will provide guidance in the event of similar occurrences in the future. Gore Newspapers Co. v. Reasbeck, 363 So.2d 609 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). Otherwise, this controversy, which is capable of repetition, may evade review. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976).
In Morgan v. State, 325 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), this court said:
Our own Supreme Court held fairly early on in Clein v. State (52 So.2d 117 (Fla.1950)) that there was no privilege of confidentiality. It was held there that newspersons are under the same duty to testify, when properly called upon, as any other person. In the light of the more recent United States Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, (408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972)) however, it is probable that the ruling in Clein is no longer the law, or, at least, has been considerably diluted. As we read Branzburg, as have other courts construing it, there is to some degree a recognizable limited or conditional First Amendment privilege to confidentiality of news sources which, nonetheless, must yield when outweighed by a more compelling public interest. Branzburg, as here, was concerned with a grand jury setting, and it was determined there that a valid inquiry into Criminal activity was of sufficient compelling nature as to override whatever conditional privilege was vested in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc.
...a moot question. Compare Times Publishing Co. v. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So.2d 487, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Times Publishing Co. v. Burke, 375 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Even if this appeal is considered of the type which should be decided notwithstanding its mootness, as apparently ......
-
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bludworth
...341, 346, 219 N.E.2d 172, 175). Eichner v. Dillon, 73 A.D.2d 431, 426 N.Y.S.2d 517, 523 (N.Y.App.Div.1980). See Times Publishing Co. v. Burke, 375 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). This is a case of first impression in Florida and is the logical result of the supreme court's affirmance of this ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hassen
...is of substantial public interest and is likely to recur, especially when due process rights are at stake. Times Publishing Co. v. Burke, 375 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Thus, because the continued application of the statute is a matter of great public importance in the highly regulated f......
-
State v. Kadivar
...found to be improper. The matter is of substantial public interest, and guidance is needed for the future. See Times Publishing Company v. Burke, 375 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The reasoning presented to the circuit court by respondent's counsel and adopted by that court in the order to ......