Case Title: Susan C. Nichols v. Mark H. Bennett

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1993AP002480

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  93-2480 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
SUSAN C. NICHOLS, 
 
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
 
MARK H. BENNETT, 
Columbia County District Attorney, 
 
 
Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
FILED 
 
 FEB 28, 1996 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  
Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
                                                                 
  
 
 
 
Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed and 
remanded with directions. 
 
JANINE P. GESKE, J.  This is a review of a published decision 
of the court of appeals which reversed the circuit court's order 
denying an open records petition for mandamus filed pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a) (1991-92).
1  The sole issue is whether 
open records requests made to a district attorney and the district 
attorney's responses to those requests are exempt from public 
inspection under State ex rel. Richards v. Foust, 165 Wis. 2d 429, 
                     
     
1  Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are 
to the 1991-92 Wisconsin Statutes. 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
2 
477 N.W.2d 608 (1991), because they are contained in prosecutorial 
files.  We conclude that the requested records are subject to 
inspection and copying under the open records law.  Although the 
district attorney placed these records into prosecutorial files, 
it is the nature of the documents and not their location which 
determines their status under §§ 19.31 to 19.37, the Wisconsin 
open records law.  The court of appeals correctly held that these 
records do not qualify for the common law exemption described in 
Foust.  We therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision.  
 
FACTS 
 
On August 28, 1992, Susan C. Nichols (Nichols), wrote to 
Columbia County District Attorney, Mark H. Bennett (Bennett), 
asking for copies of all the open records requests his office had 
received from January 1, 1990, until that date.  She also 
requested copies of Bennett's responses to those requests, but 
made it clear that she was not asking for copies of the actual 
records he may have sent to requesters.  Bennett responded on 
September 1, 1992, stating that although he did not have a 
"special file" containing the materials requested, he and his 
staff 
would 
attempt 
to 
obtain 
and 
promptly 
forward 
the 
information.  Nichols sent a second letter on September 28, 1992, 
reiterating her initial request.  In response, Bennett informed 
Nichols that his office had received four open records requests in 
the given time span.  He released a copy of one of these requests 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
3 
because it was "not part of a prosecutorial file nor [did it] 
contain investigative data." 
 
Bennett declined to provide Nichols with copies of the other 
three open records requests or his responses.  However, in his 
responsive letter, he did inform Nichols of the nature of the 
requests and the substance of the action taken.  Two of the 
requests had been made by defense attorneys for personnel records 
of police officers involved in pending prosecution cases.  Bennett 
had forwarded these requests to the specific law enforcement 
agency custodians.  In the remaining request, a prisoner asked for 
his own closed prosecution file.  Bennett informed Nichols that he 
had responded to this request by sending a copy of the file to the 
prisoner.
2  Bennett wrote that: "It is my position that you are 
not entitled to letters or any documents contained in the above 
three closed prosecutorial files or any other closed prosecution 
files in my office."  He stated that Foust "holds that 
prosecutorial files are exempt from public access."  
 
Nichols then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a), seeking to compel Bennett to release 
the remaining requested documents.  On March 31, 1993, the circuit 
court issued a memorandum decision denying Nichols' petition.
3  
                     
     
2  The prisoner's request and Bennett's response had occurred 
before the release of the Foust opinion.   
     
3  The records at issue were not inspected by the circuit 
court in camera and are not a part of the appellate record before 
us. 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
4 
The court concluded that the records sought were not simply stored 
in, but were "part of closed prosecution files and as such, are 
exempted from disclosure under Foust." 
 
Nichols appealed.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded 
with directions that the writ of mandamus be granted on the basis 
that the Foust exemption applies only to "items that actually 
pertain to prosecution."  Nichols v. Bennett, 190 Wis. 2d 360, 
364, 526 N.W.2d 831 (Ct. App. 1994).  The court of appeals 
determined that the principles underlying Foust limit its 
application to "information gathered in the course of an 
investigation."  Id.  This court subsequently granted Bennett's 
petition for review on the issue of the scope of the exception 
articulated in Foust. 
 
This court is asked to determine whether open records 
requests are themselves exempt from access under the open records 
law when they are contained in a prosecutorial file.  Resolution 
of this issue involves the application of the open records law to 
undisputed facts.  This presents a question of law which we 
approach without deference to the conclusions of the courts below. 
 Mayfair Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Baldarotta, 162 Wis. 2d 142, 
155, 469 N.W.2d 638 (1991). 
 
The open records law serves one of the basic tenets of our 
democratic system by providing an opportunity for public oversight 
of the workings of government.  Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 
Wis. 2d 417, 433-34, 279 N.W.2d 179 (1979).  This state recognizes 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
5 
a presumption of accessibility to public records, reflected in 
both the statutes and in our case law:   
[Sections] 19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in every 
instance with a presumption of complete public access, 
consistent with the conduct of governmental business.  
The denial of public access generally is contrary to the 
public interest, and only in an exceptional case may 
access be denied. 
 
Wis. Stat. § 19.31.  This court has summarized its approach to the 
open records law in the following manner: 
[T]he general presumption of our law is that public records 
shall be open to the public unless there is a clear 
statutory exception, unless there exists a limitation 
under the common law, or unless there is an overriding 
public 
interest 
in 
keeping 
the 
public 
record 
confidential. 
 
Hathaway v. Green Bay School Dist., 116 Wis. 2d 388, 397, 342 
N.W.2d 682 (1984).  Further, we narrowly construe any exceptions 
to the general rule of disclosure.  Fox v. Bock, 149 Wis. 2d 403, 
411, 438 N.W.2d 589 (1989). 
 
In Foust, we concluded that "the common law provides an 
exception which protects the district attorney's files from being 
open to public inspection."  Foust, 165 Wis. 2d at 433-34.  We 
identified several grounds for protecting prosecutorial files from 
inspection including the need to shield anonymous statements and 
informants' identities in an on-going effort to encourage public 
cooperation in criminal investigations.  Id. at 435.  In Foust, we 
concluded that "access to data collected and placed into 
prosecutor files is not open to indiscriminate public view."  Id. 
at 436. 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
6 
 
Bennett argues that Foust creates a bright-line rule which 
exempts all documents contained in prosecutorial files from public 
access.  He maintains that the court of appeals' decision "clouds 
the clarity and certainty" of that bright-line rule.  Bennett 
asserts that Foust drew no distinction between types of records 
contained in prosecutorial files nor did it set forth any 
exceptions to the rule, and we should reject the court of appeals' 
attempts to do so.   
 
 
We conclude that neither the purposes underlying the open 
records law nor the policy reasons supporting the Foust exemption 
are served by nondisclosure of the letters at issue here.  The 
court of appeals held that a record should not be "automatically 
exempt merely because a custodian stores it in a closed 
prosecutorial file."  Nichols, 190 Wis. 2d at 364.  We agree.  A 
prosecutor cannot shield documents subject to the open records law 
simply by placing them into a "prosecutorial file."  It is the 
nature of the documents and not their location which determines 
their status under §§ 19.31 to 19.37.  To conclude otherwise would 
elevate form over substance.
4 
 
District Attorney Bennett, an elected public official, is the 
legal custodian of public records in his office.  Wis. Stat. 
                     
     
4  This opinion should not be read as questioning or 
weakening the exception we recognized in Foust.  We reaffirm that 
documents integral to the criminal investigation and prosecution 
process are protected "from being open to public inspection."  
Foust, 165 Wis. 2d at 434. 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
7 
§ 19.33.  The declared public policy of this state is that the 
public is entitled to the greatest possible information concerning 
the official acts of its elected officials and government.  Wis. 
Stat. § 19.31.  It is "an integral part of [Bennett's] routine 
duties" to facilitate access to public records in his office and 
thereby provide the public with information about his own official 
acts as well as those of other government officials and employees. 
 Wis. Stat. § 19.31.   
 
Here, Nichols, a member of the public, is entitled to see how 
Bennett handles the open records demands he receives.  As 
custodian of these records, Bennett must make available the 
requested open records demands and his responses to them.  These 
records are not exempt from the open records law and cannot be 
shielded from disclosure. 
 
Finally, 
Bennett 
raised 
the 
argument 
on 
appeal 
that 
compliance with Nichols' request would not be in the public's best 
interest because it would place an unreasonable burden upon his 
staff and resources.  Bennett did not raise this argument at the 
trial court level and, more importantly, did not state it as one 
of the specified reasons for denying Nichols' request.  As we 
noted in Breier, the custodian must "state specific public-policy 
reasons for the refusal."  Breier, 89 Wis. 2d at 427.  It is not 
"this court's role to hypothesize reasons or to consider reasons 
for not allowing inspection which were not asserted by the 
custodian" and the stated reasons provide the necessary basis for 
 
No. 93-2480 
 
 
 
8 
review.  Id.  We therefore decline to address this argument in 
this review.
5 
 
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the 
court of appeals. 
 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed and cause is remanded with directions. 
 
 
  
                     
     
5  Further, as pointed out in the amicus brief filed by the 
Wisconsin Newspaper Association, the statutes provide that an 
authority may impose a fee on the requester if the "actual, 
necessary and direct cost" of locating a record exceeds $50.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3)(c).  Thus, cost of retrieval alone does not 
constitute an adequate reason for denial of an open records 
request. 
 
No. 93-2480 ssa 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
SHIRLEY 
S. 
ABRAHAMSON, 
J. 
(concurring).   The 
opinion 
correctly concludes that the records at issue in this case were 
not exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin's open records law, and 
I therefore join the mandate.  I write separately because the very 
reasons the opinion relies upon to reach its result warrant 
overturning the court's prior decision in State ex rel. Richards 
v. Foust, 165 Wis. 2d 429, 477 N.W.2d 608 (1991). 
 
In concluding that a prosecutor cannot shield otherwise 
disclosable documents merely by placing them in a prosecutorial 
file, the opinion correctly observes that "[i]t is the nature of 
the documents and not their location" which determines whether 
they should be disclosed.  "To conclude otherwise," the opinion 
continues, "would elevate form over substance."  Majority op. at 
6. 
 
Conversely, in concluding that prosecutorial files should 
automatically and categorically be exempt from Wisconsin's open 
records law, regardless of whether the files pertain to open or 
closed investigations, the Foust court did precisely what we 
rightly condemn today: it elevated form over substance, thereby 
thwarting the presumption inscribed in Wisconsin's open records 
law in favor "of complete public access" "in every instance."  
Wis. Stat. § 19.31 (1991-92).
6   
                     
     
6  All future references are to the 1991-92 volume of the 
 
No. 93-2480 ssa 
 
 
 
2 
 
That presumption requires a careful balancing between the 
public interest in disclosure of the contested information and the 
potential harmful effect of such disclosure.
7  In conducting that 
balancing test, "[t]he denial of public access generally is 
contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case 
may access be denied."  Wis. Stat. § 19.31.  In holding that a 
prosecutor's closed case files were exempt from public inspection, 
the Foust court failed to heed this statutory prescription.
8 
 
In its effort to both salvage Foust and adhere to the open 
records statute, the court's opinion today circumvents the Foust 
court's blanket exemption for records placed in prosecutorial 
files by insisting that neither the purposes served by the open 
records law nor the policies enunciated in Foust itself warrant 
exempting the documents at issue in this case from open records 
requests. 
(..continued) 
Wisconsin Statutes. 
     
7  Wis. Stat. § 19.31; Fox v. Bock, 149 Wis. 2d 403, 411, 438 
N.W.2d 589 (1989); Hathaway v. Green Bay Sch. Dist., 116 Wis. 2d 
388, 396-97, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984); Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 
Wis. 2d 417, 426-27, 279 N.W.2d 179 (1979); State ex rel. Youmans 
v. Owens, 28 Wis. 2d 672, 682-83, 137 N.W.2d 470, 139 N.W.2d 241 
(1965). 
     
8 
 
The 
open 
records 
law 
insures 
that 
when 
closed 
prosecutorial files contain materials which, were they disclosed, 
would harmfully affect the public interest, the district attorney 
need not release them.  See State ex rel. Richards v. Foust, 165 
Wis. 2d 429, 439, 477 N.W.2d 608 (1991) (Abrahamson, J., 
dissenting). 
 
No. 93-2480 ssa 
 
 
 
3 
 
While the majority insists that the exception it creates to 
Foust "should not be read as questioning or weakening" Foust, 
majority op. at 6 n.4, it is difficult to comprehend how else one 
might read the opinion.  The opinion limits Foust to "documents 
integral to the criminal investigation and prosecution process."  
Majority op. at 6 n.4.  This standard is nebulous and it sets the 
stage for future litigation as surely as Foust rendered inevitable 
the case before us today.  The exception to Foust which the 
majority opinion carves out is only the first; it will not be the 
last.
9 
                     
     
9 
 
The 
Foust 
court 
stated 
that 
under 
the 
court's 
interpretation of the common-law exception to disclosure, a 
prosecutor need not even respond to an open records law request 
for access to information in a prosecutorial file.  This further 
illustrates the tension between Foust and the open records act.  
Foust, 165 Wis. 2d at 437.  Because the prosecutor in this case 
did respond to the request for information, this issue was not 
before us.  Should he have declined to do so, the court could have 
been compelled to carve out yet another exception to Foust, since 
replying to such a request presumably does not jeopardize and is 
not "integral to the criminal investigation and prosecution 
process." 
 
No. 93-2480 ssa 
 
 
 
4 
 
Without any authority or support in either the statutes or 
the common law, Foust unilaterally prohibits the full application 
of Wisconsin's open records law.  Because of the irreconcilable 
tension between the Foust court's holding and the statute it 
purports to interpret and apply, the majority opinion can only 
grapple with Foust's troubled legacy by denying what that legacy 
means.  Such contortions do not make good law.  Hence rather than 
destroying Foust covertly in an effort to save it, we should avail 
ourselves today of the opportunity to overtly overturn it.  
 
For the reasons set forth, I concur.   
 
No. 93-2480 ssa 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
93-2480 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
Susan C. Nichols, 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
Mark H. Bennett, Columbia County 
 
 
 
District Attorney, 
 
 
 
 
Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
 
Reported at:  190 Wis. 2d 360, 526 N.W.2d 831 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1994) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PUBLISHED 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
February 29, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
November 30, 1995 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Columbia 
 
JUDGE: 
JOSEPH E. SCHULTZ 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., concurs (opinion filed) 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For 
the 
respondent-respondent-petitioner 
there 
briefs and oral argument by Mark H. Bennett, Columbia County 
District Attorney. 
 
 
For the petitioner-appellant there was a brief by Norma 
Briggs and Briggs Law Office, Madison and oral argument by Norma 
Briggs. 
 
 
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Jeffrey J. Kassel and 
LaFollette & Sinykin, Madison for the Wisconsin Newspaper 
Association.