Court Opinion

ID: 9663283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:34:05.937946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:47.385805
License: Public Domain

CALLOW, WILLIAM G., J.
(concurring). The dissent concludes that the majority opinion will further complicate the problems in maintaining a prison system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nowhere does the majority opinion state that Morke should be given access to the requested records. In fact, the majority opinion cites with approval the principle announced in Youmans that public records are properly withheld when the harm done to the public interest in disclosing the records outweighs the right of a member of the public to have access to the records.
The majority opinion holds that Morke's petition is adequate and that the issues of the public interest and the existence of the requested records are relevant once those issues have been raised in a return, not at the motion to quash stage. The majority opinion also holds that an in camera inspection is necessary in this case. Thus, the majority opinion simply declares that the proper procedures were not followed here, and I find no basis in the law for abandoning the proper procedures due to the status of the requestor. In this case, following the proper procedural course does not "waste" judicial resources because evaluating the records custodian's defenses after a return has been filed is no more time consuming than evaluating them at the motion to quash stage.
I find no support for the dissent's erroneous conclusion in the only case the dissent cites, Oshkosh North*535western Co. v. Oshkosh Library Board, 125 Wis. 2d 480, 373 N.W.2d 459 (Ct. App. 1985).