Summary
In Wells, the second district overturned a trial court order that certain investigative files were "inactive" and summarily held the records were exempt as "active criminal investigative information" because an in camera inspection led that court to conclude there was a reasonable, good faith anticipation of securing an arrest or prosecution in the foreseeable future on each of the dates the Herald Tribune demanded disclosure.
Summary of this case from Barfield v. Ft. Lauderdale PoliceOpinion
Nos. 87-01832, 87-01833 and 88-01708.
June 30, 1989. Rehearing Denied August 3, 1989.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Manatee County, Paul E. Logan, J.
Carol A. Masio of McGuire and Parry, Bradenton, for appellant Charles B. Wells, Sheriff.
Frank Schaub, State Atty., and Claflin Garst, Jr., Asst. State Atty., Bradenton, for appellant Frank Schaub, State Atty.
George K. Rahdert and Rachel Nash Medlin, of Rahdert Anderson, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
In these consolidated appeals, Wells and Schaub seek review of a final judgment entered June 23, 1987, by Judge Logan determining that certain investigative files of the offices of the sheriff and state attorney were inactive and therefore subject to inspection. See §§ 119.011(1), 119.07(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1988 Supp.). The Sarasota Herald-Tribune appeals a subsequent order entered on May 12, 1988, by Judge Adams determining that the same files are exempt from disclosure by reason of an active prosecution which arose from an indictment rendered two days after the June 23, 1987, judgment.
The provisions of the Public Records Act pertinent to this appeal have remained unchanged since the first records request in 1986.
In reviewing the final judgment of June 23, 1987, we have conducted an in camera inspection of the files in question. We determine that the judgment of June 23, 1987, is not supported by competent substantial evidence. We find that the criminal investigation to which these files relate was active and ongoing with a "reasonable, good faith anticipation of securing an arrest or prosecution in the foreseeable future" on each of the dates the Herald-Tribune made demand that they be disclosed. § 119.011(3)(d)(2), Fla. Stat. (1988 Supp.). Therefore, the files were exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 119.07(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and the final judgment of June 23, 1987, is reversed.
Having so determined, we do not reach the issues raised by the appeal from the order of May 12, 1988, which are now rendered moot.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.