Wells v. Sarasota Herald Tribune Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wells v. Sarasota Herald Tribune Co.

546 So. 2d 1105, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1581, 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2495, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1989 WL 72099

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 30, 1989·No. Nos. 87-01832, 87-01833 and 88-01708·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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(l)(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.

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 [1106] order of May 12, 1988, which are now rendered moot.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

PER CURIAM.

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(l)(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.

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 [1106] order of May 12, 1988, which are now rendered moot.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Wells v. Sarasota Herald Tribune Co., 546 So. 2d 1105, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1581, 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2495, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1989 WL 72099 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

546 So. 2d 1105 (Wells v. Sarasota Herald Tribune Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related