Opinion ID: 1708076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Agency Theory

Text: The agency theory advanced by the State has some compelling logic to it. Florida courts have uniformly held that prosecutors are imputed with constructive knowledge and possession of evidence held by other departments of the executive branch of Florida's government for discovery purposes and therefore can be sanctioned for discovery violations. See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 520 (Fla.1998); Gorham v. State, 597 So.2d 782 (Fla.1992); Antone v. State, 355 So.2d 777 (Fla.1978); McArthur v. State, 671 So.2d 867, 869 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Gorham for proposition that the State is charged with constructive possession of all information and evidence in the hands of the its agents, including police officers); Lee v. State, 538 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). [2] Consequently, as a general rule, information within the possession of the police is considered to be in possession of the prosecution. State v. Alfonso, 478 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). With that being so, it appears incongruous not to consider a law enforcement agency as the agent of the prosecution, the State, for purposes of a criminal defendant's public records request. Henderson essentially claims that he should be treated the same as any other disinterested Florida citizen seeking public information from the State. However, Henderson certainly has more of a vested interest in law enforcement documents than the average Floridian. Considering that the State is burdened by its association with law enforcement agencies and any other executive agency for discovery violations, logically then it should benefit by that presumed relationship in the public records context.