Court Opinion

ID: 9663956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:56:01.253699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:59.544122
License: Public Domain

Shirley S. Abrahamson, J.
(dissenting). Even though Richards' brief supporting the motion to reconsider raises issues that were considered in the majority or dissenting opinion, I would grant reconsideration on all issues and arguments.1
I believe the court has seriously erred by ignoring the controlling statute and legal precedent. The majority's holding that a custodian of a public record need not state reasons for denying a request for access to a record *440cdirectly conflicts with the text of and legislative intent expressed in sec. 19.35(4)(a), Stats. 1989-90.
Section 19.35(4) (a) expressly requires an authority to give a reason for denying access to any record: "Each authority, upon request for any record, shall, as soon as practicable and without delay, either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or in part and the reasons therefor." (emphasis added).2
For purposes of secs. 19.33 to 19.39, authority is defined to include a district attorney,3 and the word record is defined broadly to include almost all materials in a government office.4 The word record as used in sec. *440d19.35 (4) (a) includes both records to which the public has access and those to which the public may be denied access. Thus both the open and closed files in the district attorney's office are records as that word is used in the public record statute.
I do not know how, after the decision in this case, the legislature could amend the statutes to make its intent any clearer that each authority must give a reason for denying access to a record. Must the legislature add the words "AND WE REALLY MEAN IT" to sec. 19.35(4)(a)?
Furthermore the majority has failed to appraise the different policy considerations governing prosecutors' open and closed files and has failed to appreciate that government operations and the public interest remain protected when circuit courts examine, on a case by case basis, a prosecutor's closed files in camera to determine whether they should be made public.
Under these circumstances I believe that reconsideration of the entire case and the opportunity for oral argument of the issues is needed. For these reasons I dissent from the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Heffer-nan and Justice Bablitch join in this dissent.

The court's internal operating procedures state:
Reconsideration, in the sense of a rehearing of the case, is seldom granted. A change of decision on reconsideration will ensue only when the court has overlooked controlling legal precedent or important policy considerations or has overlooked or misconstrued a controlling or significant fact appearing on the record. A motion for reconsideration may result in the court's issuing a corrective or explanatory memorandum to its opinion without changing the original mandate.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures II.J (1991).

The requirement that the authority give reasons for a denial of a request for any record is further explained in sec. 19.35(4) (b) which provides as follows:
If a request is made orally, the authority may deny the request orally unless a demand for a written statement of the reasons denying the request is made by the requester within 5 business days of the oral denial. If an authority denies a written request in whole or in part, the requester shall receive from the authority a written statement of the reasons for denying the written request. Every written denial of a request by an authority shall inform the requester that if the request for the record was made in writing, then the determination is subject to review by mandamus under s. 19.37(1) or upon application to the attorney general or a district attorney.

Section 19.32(1) defines authority to include an elected official.

Section 19.32(2) defines record broadly as follows:
19.32 Definitions. As used in ss. 19.33 to 19.39:
(2) "Record" means any material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, visual or electromagnetic information is recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which has been created or is being kept by an authority. "Record" includes, but is not limited to, handwritten, typed or printed pages, maps, charts, photographs, films, recordings, tapes (including computer tapes), and computer printouts. "Record* does not include drafts, notes, prelimi*440dnary computations and like materials prepared for the originator's personal use or prepared by the originator in the name of a person for whom the originator is working; materials which are purely the personal property of the custodian and have no relation to his or her office; materials to which access is limited by copyright, patent or bequest; and published material in the possession of an authority other than a public library which are available for sale, or which are available for inspection at a public library.