MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
SUSANNE Y. FRANGIE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court held that reporters possess a qualified privilege protecting both confidential and nonconfidential information gathered during employment, applicable in both civil and criminal proceedings. The Court clarified the scope of the reporter's privilege and established a three-prong balancing test for determining when disclosure may be compelled.
The Court held that a qualified reporter's privilege exists in Florida protecting both confidential and nonconfidential information gathered in the course of employment, applicable in both civil and criminal proceedings. The privilege does not extend to eyewitness observations or physical evidence of a crime. Once the privilege attaches, courts must apply a three-prong balancing test: (1) whether the movant has established the reporter possesses relevant information; (2) whether the same information is not available from alternative sources; and (3) whether the movant has a compelling need for the information.
[1] A qualified reporter's privilege exists in Florida and extends to both confidential and nonconfidential information gathered in the course of a reporter's employment.
[2] The qualified reporter's privilege in Florida does not apply to eyewitness observations or physical evidence, including recordings, of a crime.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a qualified reporter's privilege exists in Florida and that such a privilege extends to both confidential and nonconfidential information gathered in the course of a reporter's employment”
Establishes that the privilege protects both types of information, not just confidential sources
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris Communications Corporation's reporter was served with a subpoena duces tecum in a civil proceeding seeking disclosure of nonconfidential inform…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie, 704 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), in which the district court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Morris Communications Corporation’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on its reporter in a civil proceeding. In affirming the trial court’s order, the district court concluded, in accordance with the rationale of Davis v. State, 692 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), quashed, 720 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1998), that Florida law did not recognize a privilege for nonconfidential sources of a reporter. However, because Davis involved the reporter’s privilege in the context of a criminal proceeding and because the instant case involved the privilege in the context of a civil proceeding, the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES FLORIDA LAW PROVIDE A QUALIFIED REPORTER’S PRIVILEGE AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF NONCONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING?
Morris, 704 So. 2d at 1143. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In State v. Davis, 720 So. 2d 220, 226 (Fla.1998), we quashed the district court’s opinion in Davis, holding as follows:
Through this opinion, we clarify the limitations of the qualified reporter’s privilege in Florida. First, we hold that a qualified reporter’s privilege exists in Florida and that such a privilege extends to both confidential and nonconfidential information gathered in the course of a reporter’s employment. Second, we hold, consistent with our opinions in [Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.] Morejon [561 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1990)] and [CBS, Inc. v.] Jackson [578 So. 2d 698 (Fla.l991)], that the privilege does not apply to eyewitness observations or physical evidence, including recordings, of a crime. Third, we hold that, once the privilege attaches, a court must apply the three-prong balancing test used by an overwhelming majority of other states to determine whether the privilege will act to prevent the disclosure of the reporter’s information; that is, the court must determine whether the movant has established that: (1) the reporter possesses relevant information; (2) the same information is not available from alternative sources; and (3) the movant has a compelling need for any information the reporter may have.
Consistent with our opinion in Davis, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and we clarify that a qualified reporter’s privilege applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. Accordingly, we quash the district court’s decision in the instant case and remand this cause for reconsideration of the motion to quash in light of our decision in Davis.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. State, 132 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 2013)…8) (emphasis added). The reporter’s qualified privilege applies to both confidential and non-confidential sources, see State v. Davis, 720 So. 2d 220, 222 (Fla.1998), and in both criminal and civil cases, see Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie, 720 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1998). In order to overcome the privilege, the party must demonstrate that the journalist’s information is relevant, that the information cannot be reasonably obtained from alternative sources, and that a compelling interest exists requiring di…
-
News-Journal Corp. v. Kit Carson, 741 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1979). . See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). . § 90.5015(2)(b), Fla. Stat. . § 90.5015(2)(c), Fla. Stat. . See Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangia, 720 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1998). . Maressa v. New Jersey Monthly, 89 N.J. 176, 445 A. 2d 376 (1982). . See Mitchell v. Superior Court of Marin County, 37 Cal.3d 268, 208 Cal.Rptr. 152, 690 P. 2d 625 (1984). . See Mitchell. . See Carl C. Monk, Evidentiary Privilege f…
-
Ulrich v. Coast Dental Servs., Inc., 739 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…e the privilege by publishing or broadcasting information. This qualified statutory privilege extends to both confidential and non-eonfidential information. State v. Davis, 720 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1998); see also Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie, 720 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1998). In the instant case, the trial court held that the information sought by the subpoena was within the scope of the qualified journalist’s privilege but that Ulrich waived the privilege by disclosing the information to other parties. Ulric…
Authorities Cited
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Aristides Morejon, 561 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Merlan Davis, 720 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1998)
- CBS, Inc. v. Kareem Jackson, 578 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1991)
- Merlan Davis v. State, 692 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. Susanne Y. Frangie and Frank Frangie, 704 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)