Opinion ID: 1195222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington Case Law Prohibits the Withholding of Records in Their Entirety.

Text: The majority's holding that the entire file is exempt from disclosure also flies in the face of this court's prior decision in Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Washington, 125 Wash.2d 243, 261, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) ( PAWS ) where we stated, In general, the Public Records Act does not allow withholding of records in their entirety. Instead, agencies must parse individual records and must withhold only those portions which come under a specific exemption. Portions of records which do not come under a specific exemption must be disclosed. (Emphasis added); see also Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 85 Wash.App. 524, 530-31, 933 P.2d 1055 (Entire criminal file could not be exempt from disclosure as it contained public records. Therefore, blanket denial by the prosecutor's office was error.), review granted, 133 Wash.2d 1001, 943 P.2d 662 (1997). The majority claims that PAWS cannot be followed because the PDA does not set forth any guidelines to limit the scope of the law enforcement exemption. Without such guidelines, the majority posits, the law enforcement agency, not the courts, ... determine[s] what information, if any, is essential to solve a case. Majority op. at 716. The majority fails to realize that leaving the interpretation and enforcement of the PDA's requirements to the very agencies it was designed to regulate is the most direct course to [the PDA's] devitalization. Hearst, 90 Wash.2d at 131, 580 P.2d 246. Furthermore, the majority again overlooks the fact that the PDA limits the scope of the exemption to specific records that are essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy. RCW 42.17.310(1)(d). The fear of the majority and amicus that open cases will be compromised by the unfettered release of information, Amicus Curiae Br. at 3, is mitigated by the fact that judges may, and most likely will, consider the views of law enforcement officers in determining what is essential to law enforcement or whose right to privacy should be protected. It is only if and when a judge is persuaded, after an in camera review, that the release of information within an investigative file will not jeopardize an ongoing investigation or compromise a person's right to privacy, that the judge will allow its disclosure. 3. Federal Authority Does Not Support an Exemption Based on the Status of a File nor Does It Support a Categorical Exemption of Open Files from Disclosure. The majority errs in citing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to support its holding that the open status of investigatory files exempts them from disclosure. See Majority op. at 716 (citing Dickerson v. Department of Justice, 992 F.2d 1426, 1431-32 (6th Cir.1993)). Under the FOIA the exemption of records depends on the status of the case, i.e., whether the investigation is ongoing or not. Majority op. at 716 (citing Dickerson, 992 F.2d at 1431-32); see also Nevas v. Department of Justice, 789 F.Supp. 445, 448 (D.D.C.1992). In contrast, disclosability under the PDA hinges on the nature of the record, i.e., whether it is essential to effective law enforcement or the protection of any person's right to privacy. RCW 42.17.310(1)(d); see also Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 731, 748 P.2d 597 (1988). The majority's adoption of the Dickerson test ignores this important distinction and effectively rewrites the PDA's law enforcement exemption by instructing courts to base disclosure on the status of a file, not the nature of the records within the file. The adoption of a test based on the FOIA is also wrong because the FOIA has a much broader standard for nondisclosure than the PDA. The FOIA permits nondisclosure to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (emphasis added). Nondisclosure that is dependent on the record being essential to law enforcement is much narrower than the federal  reasonableness  test for exemption. Furthermore, as we have noted, the PDA provides that courts must narrowly construe all exemptions. RCW 42.17.251. The federal act lacks a corresponding mandate. The majority concludes that once the open status of a file is ascertained, it is categorically exempt from disclosure. Majority op. at 716 (citing National Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 223-24, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 2317-18, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978)). The Robbins Tire opinion actually supports the opposite conclusion. In that case, the Supreme Court held that Exemption 7 of the FOIA was designed to eliminate blanket exemptions for government records on the basis that they were found in investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes. Robbins Tire, 437 U.S. at 236, 98 S.Ct. at 2324. Although the Court did allow for generic determinations of particular kinds of investigative records found within a file, it held that federal courts still need to determine whether the generic investigatory records should be disclosed or not, depending on whether they would interfere with enforcement proceedings. Robbins Tire, 437 U.S. at 236, 98 S.Ct. at 2323. The majority's categorical exemption of open files is exactly the kind of blanket exemption the Supreme Court's holding prohibits. While the majority may be correct in stating that generic determinations could be made as to whether specific kinds of records in a file can be disclosed, exempting all open files from disclosure effectively precludes the trial court from conducting an examination of the file to make those determinations. 4. Trial Judges Should Be Allowed to Conduct In Camera Reviews of Specific Records Consistent With the Provisions of the Public Disclosure Act. Finally, the majority's opinion essentially precludes trial judges from conducting an in camera review of specific investigative records when the file is declared by a law enforcement agency to be open. This holding undercuts the fundamental responsibility of courts to ascertain and carry out the intent of the Legislature. Rozner v. City of Bellevue, 116 Wash.2d 342, 347, 804 P.2d 24 (1991). It also contravenes RCW 42.17.340(3), which provides in pertinent part: Judicial review of all agency actions taken or challenged under RCW 42.17.250 through 42.17.320 shall be de novo. Courts shall take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others. Courts may examine any record in camera in any proceeding brought under this section. The court may conduct a hearing based solely on affidavits. (Emphasis added). Here, if the superior court were permitted to conduct such an in camera review, it might conclude that some or all of the documents within the Pratt file are exempt from disclosure. On the other hand, the trial court might well determine that the disclosure of some or all of the documents would not prejudice effective law enforcement or interfere with privacy rights. Indeed, if the requested material contains both exempt and non-exempt material, the exempt material may be redacted but the remaining material must be disclosed. Amren, 131 Wash.2d at 32, 929 P.2d 389 (citing RCW 42.17.310(2)) (emphasis added). The simple fact is the trial court cannot make a fair determination regarding disclosure until it examines the records within the file. By entirely foreclosing such an examination by the trial court, the majority improperly delegates the disclosure decision to the agency that maintains the file. This has the effect of completely jettisoning the statute's instruction that courts are to determine which public records are exempt from disclosure. Construing the statute liberally and the exemption narrowly, as we should, leads to the conclusion that the trial judge reached: there may be specific writings within the Pratt murder file that are not exempt from disclosure. In examining the file, the trial court may hear evidence from the law enforcement agency or other experts to assist it in determining which records, if any, are essential to effective law enforcement. In the final analysis, though, the only way that a court can accurately determine what portions, if any, of the file are exempt from disclosure is by an in camera review of that file.