Court Opinion

ID: 9573552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:56:42.257295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:36.573188
License: Public Domain

Benham, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I take issue with Division 4 of the majority opinion, I must dissent.
While it is true that appellants did not raise in the trial court5 the concern that some of the telephone numbers sought by appellee may be exempt from disclosure under OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (3),6 I *356believe that the interests of justice require us to expand traditional standard appellate procedure rules and remand this case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether specific telephone numbers are exempt from disclosure under OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (3).
Decided June 21, 1991.
Joe M. Harris, Alford J. Dempsey, Jr., Monica E. Ewing, Mitchell V. Coleman, for appellants.
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Carolyn Y. Forrest, Terrence B. Adamson, Peter C. Canfield, for appellees.
The General Assembly enacted the subsection to protect law enforcement officers’ confidential sources, whose lives or physical safety might be endangered if their identities were disclosed by release of law enforcement records to the public. Due to the potential gravity of this issue and in order to afford protection to those whom the Act was intended to protect, I would remand the case to the trial court to allow appellants to demonstrate which subject numbers are statutorily exempt under subsection (a) (3) from public disclosure.

 Appellants maintain the issue was not raised in the trial court because they did not anticipate, at the hearing on the equitable injunction, that the trial court would enter a final ’ order following the hearing. The transcript of the hearing reflects that after the trial court made oral findings of fact and conclusions of law and thanked the participants for their attendance, she affirmed the query of the city’s attorney that she was making a final decision in the case.

 OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (3) exempts from public disclosure. . . records compiled for law *356enforcement . . . purposes to the extent that production of such records would disclose the identity of a confidential source . . . which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or persons. . . .