Opinion ID: 1719216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: public right to open government

Text: Florida has been in the forefront of promoting open government through the broad application of our Sunshine Law, section 286.011, Florida Statutes (1983), and Public Records Act, chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1983). It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person. § 119.01, Fla. Stat. (1983). Section 119.07(1) provides: (1)(a) Every person who has custody of public records shall permit the records to be inspected and examined by any person desiring to do so, at reasonable times, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the records or his designee. The custodian shall furnish copies or certified copies of the records upon payment of fees as prescribed by law or, if fees are not prescribed by law, upon payment of the actual cost of duplication of the copies. Unless otherwise provided by law, the fees to be charged for duplication of public records shall be collected, deposited, and accounted for in the manner prescribed for other operating funds of the agency. Exceptions are allowed as set forth in section 119.07(3). [3] The purpose of the Public Records Act is to promote public awareness and knowledge of governmental actions in order to ensure that governmental officials and agencies remain accountable to the people. The statute authorizes the disclosure for public examination of all governmental records not specifically exempted by statute. This Court, in a series of cases, has recognized that the important public purpose served by our public meeting and open record laws is to ensure governmental accountability. We have specifically upheld the constitutional validity of these acts and have expressly stated that exemptions to the statutory disclosure requirement could be created only by the legislature. Rose v. D'Alessandro, 380 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1980); Shevin v. Byron, Harless ; Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1979); Florida Commission on Ethics v. Plante, 369 So.2d 332 (Fla. 1979); News-Press Publishing Co. v. Wisher, 345 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1977). It is important to note that the Fifth Circuit, in discussing Florida's Public Records Act, stated that it is clear that the legislature cannot authorize by statute an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Fadjo v. Coon, 633 F.2d 1172, 1176 n. 3 (5th Cir.1981). The Fadjo decision applies a general constitutional right of privacy to investigative criminal testimony taken by a state prosecutor and gives the witness substantial control over the disclosure of his or her testimony. No such general right of privacy has been established as yet by the United States Supreme Court, and I would expressly reject the Fifth Circuit's decision. In my view, the privacy interests of the individual must be weighed against the public interest in open government by using a balancing test similar to that applied by the United States Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services , by the Fifth Circuit in Plante v. Gonzalez , and by this Court in Byron, Harless. The Fadjo court, in my opinion, did not properly apply the balancing test. The majority's failure to apply a balancing test in the instant case could have a devastating effect on our public meeting and public records law because it opens the door to a more restrictive federal court interpretation of the proper application of the balancing test, and thereby permits those courts to construe our laws contrary to the views of this Court. This Court should at least demonstrate to the federal courts that it has properly applied the United States Supreme Court balancing test. As explained below, I find that all the criteria of the federal balancing test have been met.