Court Opinion

ID: 9664477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:19:37.135489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.562886
License: Public Domain

DYKMAN, J.
(dissenting). The legislature has determined that the identity of a pérson seeking information under our open records law is irrelevant. Sec. 19.35(l)(i), Stats.1 In addition, the legislature has declared that " [t]he denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied." Sec. 19.31, Stats.
Notwithstanding these strong legislative directives, the majority concludes that because Morke was a pris*728oner in the Wisconsin prison system, he is not entitled to the information he seeks. This creates very real problems for a legislative body. Must the legislature add "and we really mean it" to the language to prevent courts from ignoring it?
Had a newspaper or television station requested the information Morke seeks, would the majority opinion come to the same conclusion? I think not. But, as a result of stare decisis, a media representative seeking names of state employees will now be denied access because of the precedent set by this case. At the very least, confusion will be introduced into the law as trial and appellate courts struggle to distinguish this case.
Finally, the majority ignores the standard by which we review trial court findings. Without mentioning our standard of review, it addresses the facts de novo. This in effect overrules Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Aagerup, 145 Wis. 2d 818, 825, 429 N.W.2d 772, 775 (Ct. App. 1988), where we said: "the trial court found that disclosure of approximately one-quarter of the report 'may seriously impede the investigation of the case.' This is a factual determination, and as such it will not be upset on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous." (Citation omitted.)
Here the trial court found "Mr. Morke cannot be said to be any threat to the internal security of the institution or its employees, above and beyond that presented by any members of the public because he is no longer incarcerated there." The "seriously impede the investigation" language of Journal/Sentinal and the "threat to the internal security" language in this case are indistinguishable. I would accord the trial court the deference required.
I agree with the majority's implicit conclusion that prisoners' or ex-prisoners' rights to public records should be curtailed. But that is not the public policy chosen by *729the legislature. Were I writing for the majority, I would defer to the trial court's findings, and adopt its conclusion that Morke is entitled to the information he seeks.

 Section 19.35(l)(i), Stats., provides:
Except as authorized under this paragraph, no request under pars, (a) to (f) may be refused because the person making the request is unwilling to be identified or to state the purpose of the request. Except as authorized under this paragraph, no request under pars, (a) to (f) may be refused because the request is received by mail, unless . prepayment of a fee is required under sub. (3)(f). A requester may be required to show acceptable identification whenever the requested record is kept at a private residence or whenever security reasons or federal law or regulations so require.