Court Opinion

ID: 9524051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:36.831455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:48.634343
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
Dennis W. Erickson, an Assistant District Attorney for St. Croix County (District Attorney), seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals holding that public employee personnel records are exempted from the open records law. The court of appeals further held that Thomas J. Woznicki's (Woznicki) private telephone records, which are being held by the District Attorney, are not public records within the meaning of the open records law. We conclude that the open records law does not provide a blanket exemption for public employee personnel records or Woznicki's telephone records. These records are, therefore, open to the public unless there is an overriding public interest in keeping the records confidential. We further recognize the reputational and privacy interests that are inherent in such records, and hold that because of special public policy reasons that are raised when a district attorney chooses to release materials gathered during the course of a criminal investigation, the district attorney's decision to release these records is subject to de novo review by the circuit court. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals.
The facts are undisputed. In April 1994, Woznicki was charged with having consensual sex with a minor over the age of sixteen in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.09 (1993-94).1 A criminal investigation ensued, *182during which the St. Croix County District Attorney's office subpoenaed Woznicki's complete personnel file from his employer, the New Richmond School District, and Woznicki's personal telephone records.
In July 1994, the District Attorney dismissed the case against Woznicki. Subsequently, Woznicki moved the circuit court for an order prohibiting the District Attorney from releasing his personnel and telephone records. The circuit court denied this motion based on the premise that as custodian of the records, the District Attorney had sole discretion to decide whether to release them.
The District Attorney notified Woznicki that there had been two requests for his file. One of the requests was from Woznicki's employer and the other request was from the father of the complainant. The District Attorney informed Woznicki that he intended to release the records to the two requesters.
Consequently, Woznicki moved the circuit court for a temporary injunction prohibiting the District Attorney from releasing his personnel and telephone records. The circuit court denied the motion for a temporary injunction, but ordered that if Woznicki filed an appeal, the District Attorney would be enjoined from releasing the records until the issue was resolved. Woznicki appealed the circuit court's decision denying his motion for a temporary injunction.
The court of appeals interpreted the open records law to restrict public access to personnel records of public employees. The court created a categorical exemption from disclosure for all public employee personnel records. The decision of the court of appeals also narrowed the definition of a "record" subject to the open records law by excluding Woznicki's telephone records in the custody of the District Attorney, reasoning that *183they were private records created by a private entity. The court of appeals therefore reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the matter with directions to grant Woznicki's motion for an injunction prohibiting the District Attorney from disclosing Woznicki's personnel and telephone records. The District Attorney now seeks review.
The case presents the following issues. First, whether personnel records are exempt from disclosure under the open records law. Second, whether Woznicki's telephone records are exempt from disclosure under the open records law. Third, if either or both are not exempt, whether the District Attorney's decision to release them is subject to judicial review. The application of a statute to an undisputed set of facts presents a question of law which we review de novo. Village of Butler v. Cohen, 163 Wis. 2d 819, 825, 472 N.W. 2d 579 (Ct. App. 1991).
The first issue is easily answered. In Wisconsin Newspress, Inc. v. School Dist. of Sheboygan Falls, 199 Wis. 2d 769, 546 N.W.2d 143 (1996), this court held that no blanket exception exists under the open records law for public employee disciplinary or personnel records. Id. at 769. Instead, "the balancing test must be applied in every case in order to determine whether a particular record should be released, and there are not blanket exceptions other than those provided by the common law or statute." Id. at 781. For the reasons articulated in Newspress, we conclude that Woznicki's personnel records are not exempt from disclosure under the public records law. They are subject to the balancing test to determine whether permitting inspection would result in harm to the public interest which *184outweighs the legislative policy recognizing the public interest in allowing inspection. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d at 427.
The second issue is whether Woznicki's telephone records are exempt from the open records law. Despite the private nature of Woznicki's telephone bills, the telephone records in this case fall within the statutory definition of a public record. Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(2) defines "records" as "any material on which . . . information is recorded or preserved . . . [or] created or is being kept by an authority." Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(1) defines "authority" as a "state or local office, elected official, agency [or] board" who has "custody of a record." There is no question that the District Attorney constitutes a proper authority under the clear meaning of the statute. Therefore, Woznicki's telephone records are not exempt from the open records law when they are held by the District Attorney. The records are subject to the balancing test as stated above.
Having decided that Woznicki's personnel and telephone records are not exempt from the open records law, we address the final issue: whether the District Attorney's decision to release them is subject to judicial review.
The District Attorney argues that the law does not provide a cause of action for anyone seeking to deny access to his or her records, only for one seeking to compel disclosure. If an authority refuses to release a record, the requester may seek a writ of mandamus to compel release under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1).2 The Dis-
*185trict Attorney asserts that there is no parallel action through which an individual may seek to compel the custodian to deny access to public records.
We agree with the District Attorney that the open records law does not explicitly provide a remedy for an individual in Woznicki's position. Yet a review of our statutes and case law persuades us that a remedy, i.e., de novo review by the circuit court, is implicit in our law. The statutes and case law have consistently recognized the legitimacy of the interests of citizens to privacy and the protection of their reputations. Woznicki's interests in privacy and reputation would be meaningless unless the District Attorney's decision to release the records is reviewable by a circuit court. The fact that the open records law does not create a separate cause of action does not mean that Woznicki is without redress. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the District Attorney's decision to release Woznicki's records is subject to de novo review by the circuit court.
Several sections of the Wisconsin statutes evince a specific legislative intent to protect privacy and reputation. There is a general right to privacy under Wis. Stat. § 895.50.3 The open records law recognizes that the exceptions to the companion open meetings law are *186indicative of public policy on the issue of the disclosure of public employee personnel files. See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a). Wisconsin Stat. § 19.85(1) provides that governmental meetings may be closed for certain purposes involving privacy and reputational concerns:
19.85 Exemptions. (1) ... A closed session may be held for any of the following purposes:
(b) Considering dismissal, demotion, licensing or discipline of any public employe or person licensed by a board or commission or the investigation of charges against such person, or considering the grant or denial of tenure for a university faculty member, and the taking of formal action on any such matter;....
(c) Considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employe over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility.
(f) Considering financial, medical, social or personal histories or disciplinary data of specific persons, preliminary consideration of specific personnel problems or the investigation of charges against specific persons except where par. (b) applies which, if discussed in public, would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect upon the reputation of any person referred to in such histories or data, or involved in such problems or investigations.
It is significant to note that Wisconsin Stat. § 103.13(6)4 gives employees limited rights to view *187their own employment file. The employee's representative can view the file only with the written permission of the employee. See § 103.13(3). Section 103.13 is a strong legislative pronouncement that privacy and reputational interests are deserving of protection. We also note that Wis. Stat. § 230.13(1)(c) permits a state secretary or administrator to keep personnel records closed to the public when they involve disciplinary actions of employees.
Together, the above-referenced statutes evince a clear recognition of the importance the legislature puts on privacy and reputational interests of Wisconsin citizens.
Our case law has consistently recognized a public policy interest in protecting the personal privacy and reputations of citizens. In State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis. 2d 672, 137 N.W.2d 470 (1965), we stated that documents which would unduly damage a reputation should not be released. "We determine that this legislative policy of not disclosing data which may unduly damage reputations carries over to the field of inspection of public records ...." Id. at 685.
In Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, 279 N.W. 2d 179 (1979), this court cited Youmans and held that there is a public policy interest in the protection of the reputations of individuals. Id. at 430. In Breier, a newspaper sought access to the initial charges of people arrested. The chief of police conceded that the daily *188arrest record was a public record. This court allowed access to the records, but also stated that the chief of police,
asserted a legitimate concern for the rights of individuals in their reputations which must be recognized by this court. This legitimate concern for the reputations of citizens is a matter of public interest and must be weighed against the interest of the public in having the records open.
Id. at 433. Justice Coffey, in his dissent in Breier, made an important point:
[T]he damage to the person arrested through disclosure and publication is irreparable. If any balancing were to be done between the reputational interest of the individual and the newspaper's right to have this piece of gossip gift wrapped for publication, there is no doubt that the scales of justice would weigh heavily on the side of the individual.
Id. at 442.
In Village of Butler v. Cohen, 163 Wis. 2d 819, 472 N.W. 2d 579 (Ct. App. 1991), the court of appeals held that the personnel records of village police officers in that case were not subject to disclosure under the public records law. Public policy interests favoring nondisclosure outweighed the general presumption that the records should be open to the public. Id. at 829-30. These public policy interests included the protection of privacy and reputational interests, potential inhibition of candid assessments of employees in personnel records, and protection of reputations of individual police officers. Id. at 828.
*189Furthermore, the supreme court has recognized that protecting the reputations of individuals is a public policy interest....
Likewise, sec. 103.13, Stats., is indicative of our state's public policy of protecting an individual's privacy and reputational interests even to the extent that certain employee matters may be closed to inspection to the employee himself or herself. Section 103.13(6).
Id. at 830-31. The court of appeals in Butler relied on the fact that, although the case was not governed by a "clear statutory exception," our legislature repeatedly has recognized a public policy interest in limiting access to personnel files of public employees. Id. at 829.
In Armada Broadcasting, Inc. v. Stirn, 183 Wis. 2d 463, 516 N.W.2d 357 (1994), this court again recognized the importance of an individual's privacy and reputational interests. In Armada, a broadcaster brought an action under the open records law for a writ of mandamus to compel a school district to allow access to sexual harassment and grievance reports against the school district. The subject of the record's request, Schauf, sought to intervene in the action. This court held that Schauf had "a unique and significant interest in attempting to persuade the court that this report should remain closed." Id. at 474. We stated that:
Schauf has a general right to privacy under Wisconsin law. See sec. 895.50, Stats. Further, several sections of the Wisconsin statutes evince a specific legislative policy of protecting privacy and confidentiality in employee disciplinary actions.
We have also recognized that there is a public-policy interest in protecting the reputations of citi*190zens. Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, 430, 279 N.W.2d 179 (1979)_This heightened significance given to privacy and reputation leads us to conclude that Schauf s interest in keeping the Weiland report closed is sufficient to satisfy sec. 803.09(1), Stats.
Id. at 474-75.
The District Attorney correctly points out that Armada did not specifically reach the question of whether or not a record should be closed or whether Schauf had the right to close it. However, in concluding that Schauf did have a right to intervene, we recognized that an individual who is the subject of a record request has protectable privacy and reputational interests.
In Armada, the legal custodian agreed with Schauf that the records should not be disclosed. Nonetheless, because we recognized that Schauf s interests were distinct from, and possibly adverse to, the custodian, we allowed him to intervene. Id. at 476. We stated:
The . . . report contains speculative and uncorroborated information about Schauf which could cause great harm to Schauf s reputation and future career as a school teacher. Consequently, Schauf has a unique and significant interest in attempting to persuade the court that this report should remain closed.
Id. at 474.
Woznicki's interests are even more compelling than those of Schauf in Armada. Here, the District Attorney takes the position that he will release the records. Unless Woznicki is allowed some review of the District Attorney's decision, he is without recourse in *191protecting his asserted privacy and reputational interests.
Like Schauf, Woznicki has a unique and significant interest in attempting to persuade a court that his personnel and telephone records should remain closed. Woznicki may well present arguments to the court that the District Attorney, being the secondary custodian of the records, did not even consider. In fact, there is some question as to whether the District Attorney properly considered all the competing public interests in this case, or at the very least, whether he considered arguments put forth by Woznicki. In an exchange with the circuit court, the District Attorney stated:
But I don't think there's any case law that says before a custodian of records can release the contents of its file it must satisfy some particular private person that it has balanced these factors to that person's satisfaction or that person's view of— of the public interests involved.
I don't think there's any basis or any authority for the Court ordering that the District Attorney now has to somehow at some point before somebody articulate his or her view of the public interest and balancing factors before exercising his or her discretion ....
Regardless of what the District Attorney did or did not do, it is the duty of the custodian of public records, prior to their release, to consider all the relevant factors in balancing the public interest and the private interests. In Breier, we set forth the procedure a custodian must follow when an open records request is made:
*192In the first instance, when a demand to inspect public records is made, the custodian of the records must weigh the competing interests involved and determine whether permitting inspection would result in harm to the public interest which outweighs the legislative policy recognizing the public interest in allowing inspection.
Breier, 89 Wis. 2d at 427.
The duty of the District Attorney is to balance all relevant interests. Should the District Attorney choose to release records after the balancing has been done, that decision may be appealed to the circuit court, who in turn must decide whether permitting inspection would result in harm to the public interest which outweighs the public interest in allowing inspection. Whether harm to the public interest from inspection outweighs the public interest in inspection is a question of law. Id. Our courts have repeatedly held that the balancing of the public interests for and against disclosure is a question of law to be reviewed by a court de novo. Village of Butler, 163 Wis. 2d at 823; Wisconsin State Journal v. UW-Platteville, 160 Wis. 2d 31, 40, 465 N.W.2d 266 (Ct. App. 1990); Breier, 89 Wis. 2d at 427. Although our previous cases have always involved a court's review of a custodian's denial of a records request, this does not change the fact that a custodian's balancing of interests for and against disclosure is a question of law for which a court can substitute its judgment.5
*193Because we conclude that an individual whose privacy or reputational interests are implicated by the district attorney's potential release of his or her records has a right to have the circuit court review the District Attorney's decision to release the records, it necessarily follows that the District Attorney cannot release the records without first notifying that individual and allowing a reasonable amount of time for the individual to appeal the decision. In this case, the District Attorney properly gave notice to Woznicki that two requests had been made for his file.
We agree with the policy and purpose underlying the open records law: to provide the broadest possible *194access of the public to public records. However, the right to public access is not absolute. In this case, Woznicki has important interests in privacy and reputation that warrant protection under our law.
There are special public policy concerns that are raised when a district attorney chooses to release materials gathered during the course of a criminal investigation. In State ex rel. Richards v. Foust, 165 Wis. 2d 429, 433-34, 477 N.W.2d 608 (1991), this court concluded that "the common law provides an exception which protects the district attorney's files from being open to public inspection." Recently, in Nichols v. Bennett, 199 Wis. 2d 268, 275 n.4, 544 N.W.2d 428 (1996), we affirmed the Foust exemption from the open records law for documents that, by their nature, are "integral to the criminal investigation and prosecution process."
Although a district attorney does not have to release documents gathered in the course of a criminal investigation, if he or she decides to do so, the subjects of those investigative documents should have a right to notice of and to object to that pending disclosure. We articulated in Foust, and reaffirmed in Nichols, public policy reasons that support nondisclosure of prosecutorial case files, such as encouraging public cooperation in investigations by ensuring informant anonymity. Additionally, material gathered by prosecutors is sometimes highly personal and private and can include medical, psychiatric and psychological reports, as well as victims' statements.
The Foust exception to the open records law rests on the implicit recognition that district attorneys are different from other public officials in that they are able to exercise extraordinary police powers to obtain records which they did not create and for which they are not the primary custodians. Given the broad discre*195tion afforded to district attorneys in gathering information during investigations and the common law exemption prohibiting forced disclosure of such materials, it is just and reasonable that persons whose privacy and reputational interests will be impacted by a decision in favor of disclosure be given notice and be allowed to appeal.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the open records law does not provide a blanket exemption for either Woznicki's personnel records or his telephone records. These records are open to the public unless there is an overriding public interest in keeping the records confidential. We further recognize the reputa-tional and privacy interests that are inherent in Woznicki's records, and hold that the District Attorney's decision to release these records is subject to de novo review by the circuit court. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals and remand the case to the circuit court to determine if the District Attorney, in deciding that the records were to be released, conducted the appropriate balancing test in reaching that decision, and, if so, to review de novo the decision of the District Attorney.
By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 All future statutory references are to the 1993-94 volume unless otherwise indicated.

Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1) states:
(1) Mandamus. If an authority withholds a record or a part of a record or delays granting access to a record or part of a record after *185a written request for disclosure is made, the requester may pursue either, or both, of the alternatives under pars, (a) and (b).
(a) The requester may bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record. The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to have access to the requested record under restrictions or protective orders as the court deems appropriate.

 Wis. Stat. § 895.50(1) states, in part:
The right of privacy is recognized in this state. One whose privacy is unreasonably invaded is entitled to the following relief!.]

 Wis. Stat. § 103.13(6) states, in relevant part:
*187(6) Exceptions. The right of the employe or the employe's designated representative under sub. (3) to inspect his or her personnel records does not apply to:
(e) Information of a personal nature about a person other than the employe if disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the other person's privacy.

 Support for our conclusion can be found in United States v. Gerena, 869 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1989), in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue: whether prosecutors could publicly disclose materials obtained through electronic surveillance when such disclosure would harm the *193privacy interests of those involved. Although Gerena dealt with Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. ("Title III"), we find the case analogous in several respects to the case we deal with today.
Gerena recognized that there was a problem when the "government [is] the sole arbiter of what should be publicly disclosed, since once a paper is publicly filed, the damage is done." Id. at 85. We agree. In the present case, as soon as the District Attorney releases Woznicki's personnel and telephone records, the damage to his privacy and reputational interests is done. Just like our public records statute, Title III did not address this question. The Gerena court concluded that it was the district court's responsibility to balance the privacy interests of the individual against the public interests in disclosure. Id. at 85. We too leave the balancing of public and private interests to the circuit courts. The Gerena court also concluded that when the government publicly discloses documents, "the government must give defendants notice and the opportunity to object." Gerena, 869 F.2d at 86. So too in the present case, Woznicki has a right to notice and the right to be heard in court of law. See also In re The New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987).