Opinion ID: 2487462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Restriction on Right of Access to Public Records

Text: Without resorting to any case law for support, Wyatt essentially argues that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 and section 27.7081, Florida Statutes (2006), [18] unconstitutionally restrict his right to public-records access under the Florida and United States Constitutions because both provisions impermissibly mandate that his demand for public records not be overly broad or unduly burdensome and that he make his own search for records. We disagree. Section 27.7081 and rule 3.852 pertain only to the production of records for capital postconviction defendants. See § 27.7081(13), Fla. Stat. (2009); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.852(a)(1). These provisions do not prevent a capital defendant from making postconviction public records requests. In fact, upon the issuance of this Court's mandate, records relating to a capital defendant's case are automatically required to be delivered to the postconviction repository. § 27.7081(7)(b)(1), (3), Fla. Stat. (2009); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.852(g)(3)(A), (D). Should the agency receiving an additional request object to that request, a hearing will be conducted, during which the agency will advise the defendant as to why it cannot comply and what narrowing information would be required in order to comply with such a request. See Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199, 204 (Fla.2002) (When a capital defendant claims that a state agency is withholding pertinent public records, the trial court should hold a hearing regarding such claims.). This Court has consistently held that a defendant must plead with specificity the outstanding public records he seeks to obtain. Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1273 (Fla.2005). As the Court has acknowledged, rule 3.852 `is not intended to be a procedure authorizing a fishing expedition for records unrelated to a colorable claim for postconviction relief.' Moore, 820 So.2d at 204 (quoting Glock v. Moore, 776 So.2d 243, 253 (Fla. 2001)). Likewise, section 27.7081 provides for nearly identical methods of access to public records in capital postconviction cases. Requiring that a capital defendant's additional request be timely made after a diligent search and that this request not be overly broad or unduly burdensome places a reasonable restriction on access to these records. See Allen v. Butterworth, 756 So.2d 52, 66 (Fla.2000) ([T]he Legislature has the prerogative to place reasonable restrictions on the right of public records access.... (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is because a capital defendant's additional request follows the State agencies' initial delivery to the repository. We conclude the requirement that a defendant make a diligent search through records already produced and narrow his or her request to provide adequate notice to the agency from which he or she seeks information is reasonable in the context of capital postconviction claims. With respect to Wyatt's as-applied challenge to section 27.7081 and rule 3.852, he has not alleged any particular records that were sought but denied under either provision in his case. Accordingly, Wyatt's facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to both provisions lack merit. [19]