### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Ma y 8, 200 3 S es sio n CHATTANO OGA PUBLI SHI NG COMPANY, ET AL 

### . v. HA MILTO N

COUNTY ELE CTI ON COMMI SSI ON, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 02-1296 W. F rank Brow n, III, Ch ancellor

F iled October 31, 2003
No. E2003-00076-COA- R3-CV

I n this case involving the Tennessee Public Records Ac t, the issue is whether the Appellee Hamilton County Election Commi ssion should have been compelled to r elea se t o t h e A p p ell ant certain rec ords re lating to the D emocr atic primary elec tion in Hamilton C ounty held on May 7, 2002. The Trial Court held that althoug h the documents we re public rec ords, they wer e also investigative rec ords of the Te nness ee Bureau of I nvestig ation (“TB I ”) and thus subject to the exception found at T.C.A. 10-7-504( a)( 2) of the Public Rec ords Act. We find that the r ecor ds at i s sue we re not investigative rec ords of the TB I at the time the re quest was made a n d t h at t h ey should have be en rele ased to the A ppellant Chattanoog a Publishing Company (“CPC”), and acc ording ly reve rse the Trial Court’s judgme nt to the contra ry
. We a ffirm the Trial Court’s ref usal to awa

rd attorne y ’s fe es to CP C. Tenn.R.App .P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed in Par t and Reverse d in P art; Cause Rem anded
H OUS TON M. G O D D A RD , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R
. and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J J ., joined. Anthony A. J ackson and Br

uce C. B ailey , Chattanoog a, for the Appellants, Chattanoog a Publishing Company , Tom Griscom and A ndy Drury
Jer ry H. Sum me rs a ndTh oma s G re e nh olt z, Ch a ttano og a , f or the Ap pe lle e s, Hamil ton Co un ty Election Commissi on and Fran D zik, i n her of ficial c apac ity

as Administrator of Ele ctions
Alfre d H. Knig ht and Alan D. Johnson, Nashville, for Amicus Curiae The Tennessee an Richard L . Hollow, Knoxvi lle, for Amicus Curia e Te nnessee Press Association
OP IN IONAn oat h of i den t i t y i s a s wor n s t at eme n t ma de by a v ot er w h o a r r i v es a t a pol l i n g s i t e wi t h n o for m of 1 i dent i f i cat i on; t he vot er s wear s t o h i s or her i dent i t y and i s al l owed t o v ot e. A f ai l

- s af e af f i davi t i s one s i gn ed by a v ot er who has m o ved b ut has not regi st ered t he change o f ad d res s wi t h t he E l ect i o n C o m m i ss i o n pri o r t o t he el ect i o n. T he
v o te r sig n s a fail-safe a ff id a v it a n d is t h e n a llo w e d to vo te in h is o r h e r n e w ho m e p re c inc t. -2- On May 7, 2002, a primary

elec tion was held in Hamilton County . Shortlythere af t er , on May 15, 2002, the Hamilton CountyElection Commissi on selec ted Appelle e Fr an Dzik as Administrator of Elections. Ms. D zik testified that at some point shortly afte r the g ener al elec tion on No ve mbe r 7 , 2 00 2, sh e be g a n to “ re c e ive inf orma tio n f

ro m va ri ou s so ur c e s a

bo ut s ome po ssi ble irreg ularities that may

have oc curr ed in the ele ctora l proce ss.”
On November 18, 2002, the petitioner, CPC, requested c opies of the “ rec ords as they exis ted on May 7, 2002 of all re g istered voter s” in District 4 of Hamilton County

. CPC also reque sted the rec ords showing the names of the individuals who voted in the May 7 Democr atic primary for the Di stric t 4 C ou nty

Com mis sio n s e a t. On De c e mbe r 1 0, 20 02 , CPC re qu e ste d, a mon g oth e r thin g s, copies of a ll oaths of identity and fail-sa fe aff idavits pe rtaining to the District 4 primary elec tion. 1 Re pr e se ntativ e s of CPC me t wi th Ms. Dzi k in he r of fi c e on De c e mbe r 10 a nd pr e se nte d the re qu e st orally and in writing

. L ater that same day , Ms. Dzik met with Hamilton Count y District Attorney

Gene ral B ill C ox conce rning her suspicions of possible voter fraud in District 4. Ms. Dzi k had pre viouslycontac ted Attorney Gene ral Cox t o inform hi m of her conce rns i n this reg ard. Two m ember s of the TB I wer e also prese nt at this Dece mber 10 mee ting.
On De c e mbe r 11 , th e ne xt da y , p ur su a nt t o th e TB I ’s re qu e st, Ms. Dzi k tu rn e d o ve r 6 8 f a ilsafe aff idavits and 11 oaths of identity , all of which w ere from District 4, to the TBI . The Elec tion Com mis sio n re ta ine d co pie s of al l the do c ume nts turne d o ve r, wh ic h a rethedo c ume nts a t is su e in this case. Ms. Dzik stated that she wa s instructed not to provide the recor ds to any one else ; she c ou ld n ot r e me mbe r w he the r i t w a s th e TB I a g e nts or Attorne y Ge ne ra l Cox w ho ma de thi s r e qu e st. She c omp lie d w iththe ins truc tio n a ndre fu se d to g ive CPC c op ie s o f the re qu e ste d doc ume nts . M s. Dzik did s upply

CPC with all of the other doc uments it requested.
On Dec ember

12, 2002, CPC , which is the publisher of the Cha tta no og a Ti me s Fre e Pre ss , Tom Griscom, executive e ditor of the new sp ap er , and Andy Drury , a re porter f

or the ne wspape r, filed a petition to obtain public rec ords pursuant to T.C.A. 10-7- 503 et seq. , th e Te nn e sse e Pub lic Records A ct. The Trial Court enter ed an order to show cause why the petition should not be gr anted. Th e El e c tio n Co mmi ssi on fi le d a n a ns we r i n r e sp on se to the pe tit ion , w hic h a lle g e d a s f oll ow s: [T] he Respondents ha ve not disclosed oaths of ide ntity , fail saf e a f f i d a v i t s , o r

c h a n g e s o f

v o t e r a d d r e s s e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e M a y 7 elec tion in Dist rict 4. I n addition, Respondents have not disclosed the ballot forms for District 4, poll worker payroll rec ords for D istrict 4, a nda lis t of po ll w or ke rs fo r D ist

ri c t 4 with p arty

a ff ili a tio n. Th e se-3- items are c onfidential re cords within the meaning of Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 10-7-504( a)( 2) a s constituting part of the inv e sti g a tiv e fi le of the Te nn e sse e B ur e au of Inv e sti g a tio n, wh ic h is pr e se ntl y c on te mpl a tin g wh e the r t o in itiat e a n in ve sti g a tio n in to voting irr eg ularities in District 4.
After a hea ring held on Dec ember

18, 2002, the Trial Court rule d that the re cords we re “investig ative re cords” of the TB I and thus confide ntial unde r T.C.A. 10-7- 504(a) (2). Petitioners have a ppeale d this ruling. Amici curiae the Tenne ssee Pre ss Association and The Tennessee an have eac h filed a brief supporting the Petitioners’ position and arg uing that the Trial Court’s interpr etation of the Public Recor ds Act wa s err oneous. At the outset, we must determine the issue of whe ther this appea l is moot, a s is a rg ued by the Election Commissi on. On April 7, 2003, the Responde nts filed a motion st ating that they “have been advised by

District Attorney

Gene ral B ill C ox that the [TBI ] has concluded its investigation and that there no longe r exists a re ason for the re cords to r emain exempt from disclosure unde r the Te nnessee Public Records Ac t.” The Court gr anted this motion and order ed the r ecor ds unsealed and rele ased to the Petitioners.
I t is well s ettled t hat i n order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Courts, there must be a g enuine and live contr oversy

betwee n the parties which nec essitates adjudic ation of pre sent rig hts by the Court. Carson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , an unre ported opini on of t his Court filed in J ackson on Marc h 19, 2003. I n the ca se of Do c k e ry v . D oc k e ry , 559 S.W .2d 952 (Tenn.A pp.1977), this Court discussed at leng th the mootness doc trine and the “ public interest” e x ception to the doctrine, stating in r e le va nt p art

a s f oll ow s: [I ]n Ne w Ri v ie ria Ar ts Th e atre v . S tate , 219 Tenn. 652, 412 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1967). . .the Court f ollowed the g ener al except i o n t o the [m o o tn e s s d o c trin e ]:
Whil e the r

u le that this Court will not decide a moot q u es t ion is applicable whe n the question for determination a ffe cts only rig hts and claims per sonal to th e parties, an exception is well rec og nized when interests of a

public char acte r and of importance in the administration of justice g ener ally are involved. Consequently , an app el late court in Tennessee may entertain an app e a l f or fi na l de te rm inatio n if it i nv olv e s q ue sti on s o f p ub lic interest eve n though it has bec ome moot so far a s the particula r ac tion or parties are conce rned.

***-4- "It is not easy

to sta t e an y h ard and fast rule s by which questions which ar e of suf

ficient public intere st to just ify ref usal to dismiss an appea l which has be come moot. . .may be dis t i n guished from qu e sti on s whi ch are no t of su c h in te re st, sin c e the ma tte r r e sts g ener ally in the disc re t i o n of the a ppellate c ourt in eac h particula r c a se ." 13 2 A .L .R. 11 88 -1 18 9. Ho we ve r, the sta rt ing po int

is t o de te rm ine theme a nin g of

" pu bli c int e re st. " Ge ne ra lly , p ub lic int e re st "me ans something more than that the i n d ividual members of the public are interested in t h e d ec ision of the appea l from motives of curiosity or because it may bear upon their i ndividual rig hts or serve as a g uide for their future conduct as individuals." 132 A.L .R. 1189. Th e ty pe s o f i ssu e s th e cou rt s are l ike ly to r e so lve de sp ite the ir mootness are : ( 1 ) q u e s t i o n s t h a tar e l i k e l y t o ar i s e f r e q u e n t l y; (2 ) q ue sti on s in vo lvi ng theva lid ity or c on str uc tio n o f s ta tut e s; (3 ) q ue sti on s r e la tin g to e le c tio ns ; (4) que stions relating to taxation, reve nue, or gove rnmental fina ncial a ff a ir s; (5 ) q ue sti on s r e la tin g to the c on du c t of pu bli c of fi c e rs or bo die s; (6 ) q ue sti on s in vo lvi ng the g ov e rn ment a l r e g ulatio n o f p ub lic utilit ies; and (7) que stions which must necessarily become moot befor e the appeal can behear d.
See the Annotation at 132 A.L .R. 1185- 1190 for case s from diffe rent j u r i s d i c t i o n s s u p p o r t i n g e a c h c a t e g o r y.
I n this S tate a mooted issue is within the public i n t er es t if " it is one of g reat public importance, a s where it involves a determinatio n of public rig hts or interests under conditions which may be re peate d at anyti me. " Mc Can le ss v . Kl e in , su pr a 188 S.W .2d at 747.
Do c k e ry , 559 S.W .2d at 954, 955.
I n W ebber v . Bolling , an unre ported opini on of t his Court filed i n J ackson on D ece mber 13, 19 89 , a no the r c a se inv olv ing thePub lic Re c or ds Ac t, the Cou rt re je c te d th e app e lle e s’ moo tne ss-5-

arg ument wher e the a

ppellees initially

ref used to disclose the information sought by the petitioner, but the petitioner was later able to obtain the information throug h the discovery p ro ce s s
. T he W e bb e r Cou rt

a dd re sse d th e moo tne ss i ssu e a s f oll ow s: [W]e b e lie ve that th is m att er re g ard ing thea c c e ssi bil ity of pu bli c rec ords is a matter of g reat public conce rn and is of importance in the administration of justice. Acc ording ly , we will consider this iss ue.

I n th e c a se a t bar , we be lie ve the a c c e ssi bil ity of pu bli c e le c tio n re c or ds , an d the ri g ht of the pu bli c to a ssu re its e lf

that th e ele cti on pr oc e ss i s f re e , f a ir , a ndtr a ns pa

re nt, is l ike wi se of

g re a t pu bli c conce rn. The “public interest” exception to the mootness doc trine is a pplicable in this ca se, and w e will consider the issue.
Th e fo llo wi ng po rt ion s of the Te nn e sse e Pub lic Re c or ds Ac t arere le vant andc on tr oll ing in this case:
T.C.A. 10-7-503

(a) E xc e p t a s p r o v id e d in§ 1 0

- 7

- 5 0 4 ( f ) , a ll s tate , c o u n ty

a nd municipal rec ords. . .shall at all times, during business hours, be ope n fo r p e rs on a l in sp ect ion by a ny c iti zenof

Te nn e sse e , a ndtho se in char g e of suc h rec ords shall not r efuse such rig ht of inspection to any citizen, unless otherwise provide d by state law.
T.C.A. 10-7-505 (a) Any citizen of Tenne ssee who sha ll request the right of persona l inspection of any

state, county

or municipal re cord a s provided in §10-7-503, and whose re quest has bee n in whole or in part denied by the offic ial and/or de s i gn ee o f the offic ial or throug h any act or reg ulation of any

officia l or desig nee of any officia l, shall be entitled to petition for acc ess to any such rec ord and to obtain judicia l review of thea c tio ns take n to de ny the a c c e ss.
** * (c) The burde n of proof

for justification of nondisclosure of re cords soug ht shall be upon the off icial and/or de signe e of the o ff i ci al of those rec ords and the justification for the nondisclosure must be shown by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e.-6- (d) The court, in ruling upon the petitio n of any party proce eding here under, sha ll render

w ritten finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law and shall be e mpowere d to exercise full injunctive re medies and r elief to securethe purposes and intentions of this section, and this section sh a ll b e br oa dly

c on str ue d s o a s to g ive the fu lle st p os si ble pu bli c a c c e ss t o p ub lic re c or ds

. I n c a se s c on str

uin g thi s st a tut e , o ur

Sup re me Cou rt

ha s c on sis te ntl y

a ndre pe a te dly e mph a size d th e le g isl a tiv e ma nd a te to “ int e rp re t the te rm s o f the Ac t li be ra lly to e nf or c e the pu bli c interest in open a cce ss to the r ec o rds of state, county and municipal g overnme ntal entities.” Mem phis Pu b l i s h i n g Co. v. Cheroke e Children & Family Serv ices, Inc

. , 87 S.W .3d 67, 74 (Tenn.2002) (noting that “the Ac t serves a cruc ial role in promoting acc ountabilityin gove rnment thr ou g h pu bli c ov e rs ig ht o f g ov e rn me nta l a c tiv iti e s. ” ); see also Tennessee an v. Electric Power Bd. of N as hv ill e , 979 S. W.2 d 2 97 (T e nn .1 99 8) ; Me mp his Pu bli sh ing Co. v . Ci ty of M e mp his , 871 S.W

. 2 d 681 (Tenn.1994) (“[O]ur courts have been vig ilant in upholding this clear leg islative ma nd a te , e ve n inthefa c e of se ri ou s c ou nte rv a ili ng c on sid e ratio ns .” ); Gr iff in v . Ci ty of K

nox v ill e , 82 1 S. W.2 d 9 21 (T e nn .1 99 1) ; Me mp his Pu bli sh ing Co. v . H olt , 710 S.W .2d 513 (Tenn.1986)

. The Elec tion Com mis s i o n relies on the exception found at T.C.A. 10-7-504( a)( 2), which states t hat “[ a]ll investigative rec ords of the Tennessee bureau of investigation. . .shall be treated as confide ntial and shall not be open to inspec tion by members of

the p u b lic.” As pre viouslynoted, the Tria l Co urt f

ou ndthat th e re c or ds a t is su e cam e wi thin this e xce pti on a ndru le d a g a ins t th e ir disclosure.
I t is undisput ed that the e lection re cords in this case are “public re cords” within the ambit of the Act. It is also undisput ed t h at at the time CPC requested the doc uments, neither the origina l documents nor photocopie s of them wer e in the possession of the T BI , n o r was ther e any investigation underway

of the May 7 Hamilton County primary

. By the time of the pe tition fil ed two day s af terth e req ues t, Ms . Dz ikhad mad e th e TBI aware o f hercon cern s re gardi ng th e el ect io n. By the tim e of

thehe ari ng so me e ig ht d a y s a ft e r C PC’ s r e qu e st, a TB I in ves tig a tio n w a s a rg ua bly underw ay . An ag ent of the TB I who testified at the he aring noted that “no one with the TBI had any role whatsoever in the c reation of these docume nts.”
We are of the opinion that beca use the elec tion r ecor ds wer e unquestionably public rec ords fr om thetim e of the ir c re a tio n in Ma y of 20 02 , a ndbe c aus e the rewe reno app lic able e xce pti on s to the leg islative mandate of acc essibilityat the time CPC m ade the reque st for them, they should have be e n r e le a se d to CPC. To ho ld o the rw ise , a ndthe re by a llo w a g ov e rn me nta l a g e nc y

to sh ie ld o t h e r w i s e p u b l i c i n f

o r m a t i o n f

r o m t h e d a yl i g h to f

p u b l i c s c ru t i n y su bs e qu e nt to a re quest under the A c t , w o u l d , a s n o t e d b y amici curiae , p r e s e n tt h e p o t e n t i a l f o r ab u s e o f t h e T B I b y s u c h a n a g e n c y. Suc h a n in te rp re ta tio n wou ld al so ru n co un te r to both the le tte r an d spirit of the Pub lic Re c or ds Ac t.-7-

CPC arg ues t hat t he Trial Court should have a war ded its attorney ’s fe es, citing T.C.A. 10-7- 50 5( g ), wh ic h s ta te s:

I f th e c o u r t f

in d s th a t th e g o v e r n me n ta l e n ti ty , o r a g e n t th e r e o f, ref using to disclose a rec ord, knew that such re cord w as public and willfullyref

used to disclose it, such court may , in its di scre tion, assess all rea sonable costs involved in obta ining the re cord, inc luding rea sonable atto rn ey s' fee s, ag ainst the nondisclosing g overnme ntal e n t i t y.
I n Arnold v. City of Chatt anooga , 19 S.W .3d 7 7 9 (T en n
. App.1999), thi s Court noted that the “knowing and willful” standa rd conta ined in this statute “is sy nony mous with bad faith.” We stated that the Court “will not impute to the [governmental entity ] ‘a duty to forete ll an uncertain judicial fu tur e .’ ” I n th e pr e se nt c a se ne ith e r the a c tio ns of Ms. Dzi k n or

the El e c tio n Co mmiss ion r os e to the level of

bad faith. The Trial Court expressly found as f

ollows in thi s reg ard: This Court, based on the e vidence, d o es n ot find anything whic h wou ld su gg e st i n a ny

way , s ha pe , f orm or fa sh ionthat Ms . D zik i s try ing to p la y

fa st andloo se wi th t

he re c ords or

that sh e is t

rying to us e theTB I

to c ov e r s ome thi ng up or hid e it.
For the fore g oing r easons the judg ment of the Trial Court holding the r equested elec tion rec ords conf

idential and inac cessible to the public is re verse d. The Trial Court’s judgme nt declining to a wa rdCPC atto rn e y ’s fe e s is a ff ir me d. Cos ts o f a

pp e a l are adj ud g e d a g a ins t th e Ap pe lle e s, Hamilton CountyElection Commissi on an d M s
. Dz ik in her off icial ca pacity as Administrator of Elections.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GO DDARD, PRESI DING JUDGE