Summary
In Youmans the Waukesha Freeman demanded access to material submitted to the mayor by the city attorney of Waukesha after the city attorney conducted an investigation of alleged misconduct on the part of members of the Waukesha Police Department. This court deemed it unimportant that the mayor never received a final or formal report from the city attorney.
Summary of this case from Fox v. BockOpinion
September 16, 1966.
APPEAL from two orders of the circuit court for Waukesha county: CLAIR VOSS, Circuit Judge. One order modified and affirmed; appeal with respect to the other order, dismissed.
Lowry, Hunter Tikalsky of Waukesha for the petitioner.
Hippenmeyer, Reilly, Fritz Arenz of Waukesha for the defendant.
Mandamus to compel defendant Harold Owens, mayor of the city of Waukesha, to permit petitioner Henry A. Youmans to examine certain papers in the custody of the mayor.
This is the second appeal to the supreme court in this action. The decision of the supreme court in the prior appeal is reported in State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens (1965), 28 Wis.2d 672, 137 N.W.2d 470, 139 N.W.2d 241. As a result of the mandate on the prior appeal, Judge Voss, the trial judge, made an in camera inspection of the documents sought to be inspected. Thereafter, on April 28, 1966, he entered an order, the material portions of which read as follows:
"It is Ordered that the Writ of Mandamus heretofore issued in this case continue in full force and effect and that in accordance therewith the petitioner be permitted to inspect the `report' consisting of the collection of police reports, statements and other documents heretofore submitted to this Court, under the direction of Francis R. Eshman, the present Mayor of the City of Waukesha, during regular working hours, said inspection to be permitted after the delivery of said report as hereinafter provided.
"It is further Ordered that the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Waukesha County reseal the file containing the collection of documents heretofore submitted to the Court as the information sought by the petitioner in this action for a Writ of Mandamus and deliver the same to the said Francis R. Eshman, the present Mayor of the City of Waukesha, with a copy of this order, said delivery to be made at five o'clock p.m. on May 18, 1966.
"It is further Ordered that nothing contained herein is to be construed or interpreted as giving permission or immunity to any person to communicate or publish any contents of said documents which may be of a defamatory or libelous nature."
Prior to entering this order, counsel for petitioner moved the circuit court that it be furnished a copy "of the report which is the subject of this action" and that they be permitted to appear in the, proceedings in camera and to produce evidence relating to the same. The circuit court held a hearing on such motion on April 25, 1966, and denied the same. Subsequently a formal order was entered June 3, 1966, embodying such denial made from the bench on April 25, 1966.
The defendant has appealed from the order of April 28, 1966, and petitioner has appealed from the order of June 3, 1966.
This court has made an in camera inspection of the documents. sought to be inspected by petitioner. These in the main consist of police reports, statements of police officers and other persons, and transcripts of the interrogation of police officers and other persons in an inquiry conducted by the city attorney of Waukesha on the subject of alleged police brutality.
This in camera inspection of these documents satisfies this court that the order of April 28, 1966, which permits inspection of these documents by petitioner is in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this court in its opinion on the first appeal with one exception. This one exception relates to certain questions put to police sergeant Crouse and the answers thereto given by him. These questions and answers do not relate to any conduct on the part of Sergeant Crouse or any other police officer but to a collateral matter having to do with the reputation of a person whose statement appears among the documents to which inspection has been ordered. We determine that to permit this material to be inspected and made public might unduly harm the reputation of this person without any counterbalancing promotion of the public interest.
Accordingly, we have caused these objectionable questions and answers to be taped over so they will not be subject to petitioner's inspection. Because the material we have caused to be taped over is a miniscule portion of the documents sought to be inspected we consider it de minimis. This renders moot the issue raised by petitioner's appeal from the order of June 3, 1966.
The order of April 28, 1966, is affirmed with the slight modification hereinbefore noted. The appeal from the order of June 3, 1966, is dismissed. Petitioner will be entitled to tax costs with respect to the appeal from the order of April 28, 1966. No costs shall be taxed with respect to the appeal from the order of June 3, 1966.