Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. the PENSACOLA NEWS-JOURNAL, INC. and Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Erwin FLEET, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-09-09
Citations: 388 So. 2d 1106
Docket Number: No. WW-41
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. the PENSACOLA NEWS-JOURNAL, INC. and Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Erwin FLEET, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, Respondent.
Judges: SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 388
Pages: 1106–1108

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. the PENSACOLA NEWS-JOURNAL, INC. and Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Erwin FLEET, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, Respondent.
No. WW-41.
District Court of Appeal, of Florida, First District.
Sept. 9, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1980.
William H. Clark of Clark, Partington, Hart & Hart, Pensacola, for The Pensacola News-Journal.
Robert E. Lee, Fort Walton Beach, for Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Lucy H. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on a motion to review an order closing a pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress an allegedly illegally obtained confession in the case of State v. Livingston, Case No. 80-286, now pending in the First Judicial Circuit.
The order directing closure was entered upon the court's own motion. Counsel for the defendant objected to a closed hearing and the State took no position on the issue. It is apparent that in ordering closure the trial judge relied heavily upon the United States Supreme Court decision in Gannett v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979), for the proposition that it is the duty of the trial judge to evaluate the effects of pretrial publicity and to grant closure when, in the opinion of the court, the opening of certain procedures to the public would result in a denial of the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. The respondent takes the position that the granting of closure is a discretionary act that cannot be reached by mandamus. We disagree and concur in the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. State, 363 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The court, in Miami Herald, concluded that the following guidelines are applicable to closure determination: (1) that closure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice, (2) that no less restrictive alternative measures are available, and (3) that closure will in fact achieve the court's purpose. There has been no showing in this record that those guidelines or other relevant standards have been applied. In this case defense counsel insists that an open suppression hearing will enhance the administration of justice. We find no evidentiary base for the court's conclusion to the contrary. The court appears to assume that the content of the defendant's statement will of necessity be revealed during the suppression hearing. We do not see this as being a valid assumption in light of the fact that only the circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement are at issue, not necessarily the contents of the alleged confession. Should the judge's worst fears become a reality and it becomes necessary to explore the content of the statement, less restrictive alternatives than those proposed by the judge are available. The public and press in such an instance might be excluded if and when the statement is introduced. We see no reason why such procedure would interfere with or frustrate the choosing of a jury and the sequestering of said jury if such is the court's desire.
We reverse and remand for action consistent with this order.
SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
BOOTH, J., specially concurs with opinion.