Court Opinion

ID: 9610528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:42:41.374021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:00.888450
License: Public Domain

JOHN CAYCE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Double Oak Chief of Police Teri Simmons met her burden of proving a compelling reason to withhold the requested information under section 552.302 of the Texas Government Code by producing evidence that the release of the privileged information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime.1 The majority’s holding that the information is subject to public disclosure merely due to Simmons’s “blunder” in missing the ten-day notice requirements of section 552.301 exalts form over substance, and may interfere with and hamper an ongoing criminal investigation.2
*352At the trial court hearing on Stephen Kuzmich’s petition for writ of mandamus, two law enforcement' officers, Simmons and Agent Beth Gray of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, testified that a criminal investigation was ongoing and that the release of the requested information would interfere with this investigation. This testimony was corroborated by Double Oak’s attorney, David M. Berman, in a letter requesting an attorney general opinion where Berman stated that public disclosure of the requested information could allow the target of the investigation to evade prosecution by destroying or secreting inculpatory evidence. In addition, the trial court had before it the written opinion of the Attorney General of Texas holding that the requested information is privileged and exempt from disclosure under section 552.108(a)(1)3 of the Texas Public Information Act.4
I believe this uncontroverted evidence is sufficient to establish a compelling reason for withholding the requested information and to rebut the presumption that the information is subject to public disclosure. .1 would, therefore, hold that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the information must be disclosed and by awarding Kuzmich his attorneys’ fees under section 552.323(a).5

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.302 (Vernon 2004).

. See id. § 552.301(b), (d); Hobson v. Moore, 734 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex.1987) (Gonzalez, J„ concurring & dissenting) (orig.proceeding) (when weighing competing interests between releasing privileged information on the basis of a procedural technicality versus noninterference with an ongoing criminal investiga*352tion, "the better rule is that we give priority to protecting ongoing criminal investigations”).

. Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.108(a)(1).

. See City of Houston v. Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co., 673 S.W.2d 316, 322 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ) (“While the opinions of the Attorney General construing the Open Records Act are not binding upon the courts, they should be given great weight.”).

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.323(a).