But the same conclusion is far less supportable when the material affects private persons who are not parties to the proceeding and are not charged with criminal wrongdoing. The various John Does in this case are not presently charged with any crime. For all we know, any information about them now in the State's possession may be unfounded, distorted, or even contrived. There has been no information or indictment issued against them. That being the case, I cannot conclude that the public records laws ever were meant to subject at least some of these John Does to public scrutiny of their private lives.
People have a constitutionally protected interest in their good names.
The Florida Constitution recognizes that people cannot be stripped of such an interest without good and just reason. We have recognized, as the majority notes, that the public records laws themselves allow courts to order that discovery documents be withheld if this is the only way to preserve other constitutional rights. For these reasons, I dissent from the majority's analysis and conclusion. I would remand to the trial court for a determination of whether there is any legitimate public concern in the names, addresses, and other information contained in the State's discovery materials as to each John Doe. I strongly doubt that any legitimate public concern would exist with regard to private individuals not charged with a crime, although there could be a legitimate public interest if any of the material reflects on public figures or persons actually charged with a crime arising from this or a related case.