Metropolitan Dade County v. San Pedro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Metropolitan Dade County v. San Pedro

632 So. 2d 196, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 973, 1994 WL 45319

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1363

StatusPublished

This text of 632 So. 2d 196 (Metropolitan Dade County v. San Pedro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metropolitan Dade County v. San Pedro, 632 So. 2d 196, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 973, 1994 WL 45319 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Metropolitan Dade County, appeals an order unsealing an arrest warrant affidavit. The affidavit was sworn against appellee, Alberto San Pedro. We affirm.

We are unpersuaded by appellant’s argument that the circuit court is without jurisdiction in this cause. Because courts retain jurisdiction over their own records, the trial court had jurisdiction to unseal the arrest warrant affidavit. State v. Pena, 593 So.2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (en banc). Sealed court records may be unsealed upon “good cause shown” by the moving party. Times Publishing Co. v. Russell, 615 So.2d 158, 159 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 381, 126 L.Ed.2d 330 (1993).

Here, appellee sought to have his arrest warrant affidavit unsealed demonstrating that the warrant was quashed and no formal charges were filed against him. This affidavit is an important item of evidence needed in his pending federal civil rights action. We determine that there is good cause to unseal the arrest warrant affidavit.

Further, appellee demonstrated that the affidavit could be disclosed because there is not a reasonable, good faith anticipation of arresting or prosecuting appellee in the foreseeable future. See § 119.011(3)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1991). Thus, it did not constitute active criminal investigative information under section 119.07(3)(d). Additionally, most of the information contained in the affidavit was available to appellee through grand jury transcripts, appellee’s perjury trial, or by discovery. See Staton v. McMillan, 597 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 605 So.2d 1266 (Fla.1992). Because good cause was shown for unsealing the ap-pellee’s arrest warrant affidavit, because this information does not constitute active criminal investigative information, and because most of the information was available to ap-pellee, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. Doe v. State, 595 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Metropolitan Dade County, appeals an order unsealing an arrest warrant affidavit. The affidavit was sworn against appellee, Alberto San Pedro. We affirm.

We are unpersuaded by appellant’s argument that the circuit court is without jurisdiction in this cause. Because courts retain jurisdiction over their own records, the trial court had jurisdiction to unseal the arrest warrant affidavit. State v. Pena, 593 So.2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (en banc). Sealed court records may be unsealed upon “good cause shown” by the moving party. Times Publishing Co. v. Russell, 615 So.2d 158, 159 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 381, 126 L.Ed.2d 330 (1993).

Here, appellee sought to have his arrest warrant affidavit unsealed demonstrating that the warrant was quashed and no formal charges were filed against him. This affidavit is an important item of evidence needed in his pending federal civil rights action. We determine that there is good cause to unseal the arrest warrant affidavit.

Further, appellee demonstrated that the affidavit could be disclosed because there is not a reasonable, good faith anticipation of arresting or prosecuting appellee in the foreseeable future. See § 119.011(3)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1991). Thus, it did not constitute active criminal investigative information under section 119.07(3)(d). Additionally, most of the information contained in the affidavit was available to appellee through grand jury transcripts, appellee’s perjury trial, or by discovery. See Staton v. McMillan, 597 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 605 So.2d 1266 (Fla.1992). Because good cause was shown for unsealing the ap-pellee’s arrest warrant affidavit, because this information does not constitute active criminal investigative information, and because most of the information was available to ap-pellee, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. Doe v. State, 595 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 196, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 973, 1994 WL 45319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-dade-county-v-san-pedro-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack