JEFFREY GARRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD M. BAILEY, COMMISSIONER, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of mandamus petition and remanded for in-camera inspection of records, holding that trial courts must examine assertedly exempt public records to determine whether exemption claims are valid.
A trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection of assertedly exempt public records to determine whether a claimed statutory exemption applies.
[1] A trial court determining whether public records are exempt from disclosure must conduct an in-camera inspection of the assertedly exempt records rather than relying sole…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“We fail to see how the trial court can [determine whether records are exempt] without examining the records”
Court explaining necessity of in-camera inspection to evaluate exemption claims
Garrison sought public records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement via a public records request, and the Department claimed certain records…
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 Public Records Request cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Jeffrey Garrison challenges the circuit court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, in which he claimed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement wrongfully asserted that certain records he sought by way of a public records request were exempt from disclosure. The circuit court denied relief without inspecting the records at issue.
*684As we have noted, an in-camera inspection of assertedly exempt records is generally the only way for a trial court to determine whether or not a claim of exemption applies. See Weeks v. Golden, 764 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (with respect to “question of entitlement” to assertedly exempt records, commenting, “We fail to see how the trial court can [determine whether records are exempt] without examining the records”); accord Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So.2d 1054, 1058 (Fla.1993) (remarking that “it is for a judge to determine, in an in camera inspection, whether particular documents must be disclosed”).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for the circuit court to conduct an in-camera inspection of the records at issue and to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure under the statutory exemption the Department has claimed.
KAHN, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Env't Turf, Inc. v. Univ. OF Fla. Bd. OF Trs., 83 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…d., Inc. v. WFTV, Inc., 611 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). However, as to the remaining documents, an in-camera inspection is “generally the only way for a trial court to determine whether or not a claim of exemption applies.” Garrison v. Bailey, 4 So. 3d 683, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)); see also Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054, 1058 (Fla.1993) (remarking that “it is for a judge to determine, in an in camera inspection, whether particula…
-
Althouse v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 89 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…also Envtl. Turf. Inc. v. Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs., 83 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“[A]n in-camera inspection is ‘generally the only way for a trial court to determine whether or not a claim of exemption applies.’” (quoting Garrison v. Bailey, 4 So. 3d 683, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009))). Usually, the trial court’s failure to conduct an in camera inspection of the record would constitute reversible error. See Christy v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 698 So. 2d 1365, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding…
-
Executive Off. of the Governor v. AHF MCO of Fla., Inc., 257 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1993)
- Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)