Voces De La Frontera, Inc. v. Clarke, 2015AP1152

• Decision Date: 24 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2015AP1152,2015AP1152
• Parties: VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC. and Christine Neuman Ortiz, Petitioners-Respondents, v. David A. CLARKE, Jr., Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

373 Wis.2d 348

891 N.W.2d 803

VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC. and Christine Neuman Ortiz, Petitioners-Respondents,

v.David A. CLARKE, Jr., Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner.

No. 2015AP1152

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oral Argument: November 3, 2016

Opinion Filed: February 24, 2017

For the respondent-petitioner-appellant-petitioner, there was a brief by Oyvind Wistrom, Lindner & Marsack, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Oyvind Wistrom

For the petitioners-respondents, there was a brief by Peter G. Earle, and Law Office of Peter Earle, LLC., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Peter G. Earle

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J.

¶1 We review a decision of the court of appeals¹ affirming an order of the circuit court² that granted mandamus requiring Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. (Sheriff) to provide unredacted versions of immigration detainer forms (I-247 forms) to Voces de la Frontera (Voces) pursuant to its public records request. The I-247 forms were sent to the Sheriff's office by the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and contain immigration-related information about certain individuals held at the Milwaukee County Jail.

¶2 Our review requires us to determine whether the I-247 forms are exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin public records law. Specifically, we decide whether there is a statutory or common-law exemption to the public records law such that the forms are exempt from disclosure. And, if there were no such exemption, we would decide whether the public interest weighs in favor of releasing or withholding the documents.

¶3 We conclude that I-247 forms are statutorily exempt from disclosure according to the terms of Wisconsin public records law, and therefore, we need not reach common-law exemptions or the public interest balancing test. Stated more fully, under Wis. Stat. §§ 19.36(1) -(2),³ any record specifically exempted from disclosure pursuant to federal law also is exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin law. Federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 (2013) precludes release of any information pertaining to individuals detained in a state or local facility and I-247 forms contain only such information. Consequently, read together, Wis. Stat. §§ 19.36(1) -(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 exempt I-247 forms from release under Wisconsin public records law. Furthermore, because I-247 forms are statutorily exempt from release, the public interest balancing test has no application here.

¶4 Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals.

I. BACKGROUND

¶5 On February 5, 2015, Voces submitted a public records request to the Sheriff. Voces requested copies of all I-247 forms⁴ that the Sheriff received from ICE since November 2014. The custodian, Captain Catherine Trimboli, responded to Voces, but indicated that she was unable to immediately provide the requested forms. She explained that she needed to speak with ICE.⁵

¶6 Voces filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Sheriff to produce the I-247 forms. Prior to ruling on the mandamus, as a compromise, the circuit court ordered the Sheriff to produce redacted copies of all I-247 forms. Accordingly, the Sheriff produced twelve I-247 forms, but redacted the following information: (1) subject ID; (2) event number; (3) file number; (4) nationality; and (5) a series of boxes pertaining to immigration status. On April 7, 2015, the Sheriff provided forms with the detainee's nationality no longer redacted.

¶7 On June 3, 2015, the circuit court granted Voces' writ of mandamus and ordered the Sheriff to produce all I-247 forms, unredacted. Conducting a balancing test, the court weighed Voces' strong interest in examining I-247 forms against the Sheriff's interest in protecting the information contained within the forms.⁶ The circuit court concluded that the balancing test weighed in favor of disclosure. The court ordered the Sheriff to produce unredacted versions of the I-247 forms to Voces within forty-eight hours, but stayed the order until June 12, 2015.⁷

¶8 The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court. The court concluded that I-247 forms are not exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin public records law. The court concluded that "(1) no exception to disclosure under Wisconsin's open records law applies; and (2) the Sheriff failed to meet his burden of showing that the public interest in non-disclosure outweighs disclosure, given Wisconsin's very strong legislative intent and public policy favoring disclosure."⁸

¶9 First, the court of appeals rejected the Sheriff's argument that I-247 forms are exempt from disclosure under Wis. Stat. § 19.36 because a federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, prevented disclosure of immigration-related information in the possession of state or local entities.⁹ The court reasoned that the regulation applied to only those individuals currently in custody of the federal government.¹⁰ Because the individuals at issue in the present case were not currently in federal custody, the court of appeals reasoned, the federal regulation did not prevent the release of I-247 forms.¹¹ Next, the court concluded that the public interest balancing test weighed in favor of disclosure.¹²

¶10 We granted the Sheriff's petition for review and now reverse.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

¶11 This is a review of a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a remedy that can be used "to compel a public officer to perform a duty of his office presently due to be performed." State ex rel. Marberry v. Macht , 2003 WI 79, ¶27, 262 Wis.2d 720, 665 N.W.2d 155. "In order for a writ of mandamus to be issued, four prerequisites must be satisfied: ‘(1) a clear legal right; (2) a positive and plain duty; (3) substantial damages; and (4) no other adequate remedy at law.’ " Pasko v. City of Milwaukee , 2002 WI 33, ¶24, 252 Wis.2d 1, 643 N.W.2d 72 (quoting Law Enforcement Standards Bd. v. Village of Lyndon Station , 101 Wis.2d 472, 494, 305 N.W.2d 89 (1981) ).

¶12 Our review requires us to interpret and apply Wisconsin public records law. Statutory interpretation and application present questions of law that we review independently, while benefiting from the analyses of the circuit court and the court of appeals. Osborn v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System , 2002 WI 83, ¶12, 254 Wis.2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 158 (Nichols v. Bennett , 199 Wis.2d 268, 273, 544 N.W.2d 428 (1996) ).

¶13 Moreover, our review also requires us to interpret a federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. We apply general principles of statutory interpretation when construing federal regulations. See State v. Busch , 217 Wis.2d 429, 441, 576 N.W.2d 904 (1998) ("When interpreting an administrative regulation, we generally use the same rules of construction and interpretation as applicable to statutes."); Village of Lyndon Station , 101 Wis.2d at 489, 305 N.W.2d 89 ("As a corollary to the rule that validly enacted administrative rules are given the effect of law, it is generally accepted that the rules and regulations of administrative agencies are subject to the same principles of construction as apply to the construction of statutes...."); see also Bonkowski v. Oberg Indus., Inc. , 787 F.3d 190, 199 (3d Cir. 2015) ("In interpreting a federal regulation, we look to well-established principles of statutory interpretation.").

B. Statutory Interpretation, General Principles

¶14 Statutory interpretation "begins with the language of the statute. If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry." Seider v. O'Connell , 2000 WI 76, ¶43, 236 Wis.2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659. "Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty. , 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citing Bruno v. Milwaukee Cty. , 2003 WI 28, ¶¶8, 20, 260 Wis.2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656 ). Moreover, the "structure of the statute in which the operative language appears" is important. Id. ¶46. And, "statutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results." Id. ¶46 (citing State v. Delaney , 2003 WI 9, ¶13, 259 Wis.2d 77, 658 N.W.2d 416 ).

¶15 "The test for ambiguity generally keeps the focus on the statutory language: a statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more senses." Id. ¶47. And, "Wisconsin courts ordinarily do not consult extrinsic sources of statutory interpretation unless the language of the statute is ambiguous." Id. ¶50. Extrinsic sources are those "interpretative resources outside the statutory text—typically items of legislative history." Id. (citation omitted).

¶16 It is under this framework that we review whether I-247 forms are exempt from disclosure under the Wisconsin public records law.

C. Wisconsin Public Records Law

¶17 Wisconsin public records law affords the public the right to inspect certain documents within the possession of a state entity.¹³ It "serves one of the basic tenets of our democratic system by providing an opportunity for public oversight of the workings of government." Nichols , 199 Wis.2d 268, 273, 544 N.W.2d 428 (citing Breier , 89 Wis.2d 417, 433-34, 279 N.W.2d 179 ). To that end, "we have a presumption of open access to public records, which is reflected in both our statutes and our case law."

Osborn , 254 Wis.2d 266, ¶13, 647 N.W.2d 158 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 19.31 (providing "it is ... the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them"). "This presumption reflects the basic principle that the people must be informed about the workings of their government and that...