BRIAN BEVAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK WANICKA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SHERIFF OF LEE COUNTY, AND THOMAS WALLACE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DESIGNATED CUSTODIAN OF THE RECORDS, APPELLEES
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.
Brian Bevan appealed a trial court's dismissal with prejudice of his Public Records Act lawsuit after he refused to answer discovery requests about his criminal history and witness sources. The appellate court reversed, holding that while discovery regarding the source of Bevan's allegations of record destruction was proper, discovery of his criminal history was improper and the dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that while discovery regarding the sources of allegations of record destruction was permissible, discovery of Bevan's criminal history was improper under the Public Records Act, which does not condition inspection of records on disclosure of the requester's background information. Dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion.
[1] A denial of a petition for writ of certiorari without opinion does not establish the law of the case.
[2] The Public Records Act requires that all state, county, and municipal records be open to public inspection unless specifically exempted by statute.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the Public Records Act does not condition the inspection of public records on any requirement that the person seeking to inspect records reveal that person's background information”
Establishes the core principle that access to public records cannot be conditioned on disclosure of the requester's background or criminal history
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBevan filed suit seeking police records from Lee County regarding an investigation into William B. Jackman's death. He amended his complaint to allege…
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 Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Brian Bevan appeals a trial court’s order dismissing his case with prejudice. We reverse.
Bevan filed suit against the appellees claiming a violation of the Public Records Act. See § 119.07, Fla.Stat. (1985).
Bevan was seeking police records of an investigation pertaining to the death of a young man named William B. Jackman. Subsequently, he amended his complaint to include an allegation of destruction or concealment of records. In response to the amended complaint, appellees sought discovery, among other things, of the following: (1) information regarding Bevan’s criminal history, if any; (2) the names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses who supplied Bevan with information regarding the allegedly missing records; and (3) the names, addresses, and phone numbers of any private investigators retained by Bevan to locate allegedly missing records. Although the trial court granted Bevan’s motion for a protective order as to other items appellees sought, it required that he provide the information in (1), (2), and (3).
Bevan petitioned this court for writ of certiorari, contending that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by compelling him to answer the subject questions. We denied his petition without opinion. Bevan v. Wanicka, 487 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thereafter, the trial court in a modified order compelled Bevan to answer questions regarding (1) his criminal history and (2) the names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses who had personal knowledge relating to the existence or nonexistence of public records.
Upon Bevan’s refusal to answer such questions, appellees sought to have the court hold him in contempt and impose sanctions. At the hearing on their motion, the trial judge gave Bevan another opportunity to comply with the discovery request. When he again refused to answer the subject discovery, the trial court declined to hold him in contempt but dismissed his suit with prejudice. Bevan then filed this appeal.
At the outset, we note that a simple denial of certiorari without opinion is not an affirmance and does not establish the law of the case. Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Harrison, 362 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Therefore, we reject appellees’ contention that our denial of Bevan’s petition for certiorari constitutes the law of the case now before us.
The basic premise of the Public Records Act is to have all state, county, and municipal records in Florida open to public inspection, unless specifically exempted by statute. Tribune Co. v. Public Records, 493 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Furthermore, the Public Records Act does not condition the inspection of public records on any requirement that the person seeking to inspect records reveal that person’s background information. See § 119.-07, Fla.Stat. (1985).
Therefore, unless the records Bevan sought were specifically exempted, he was entitled to inspect them in accordance with the statute. Here, however, Bevan’s suit became more than a request for public records because he also alleged destruction and concealment of records. As such, the appellees were entitled to discover the source(s) of Bevan’s allegations as to these items. There does not, however, appear to be any relevant reason for the discovery of Bevan’s past criminal record, if any. See News-Press Publishing Co., Inc. v. Gadd, 388 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (holding that the Public Records Act does not direct itself to the motivation of the person who seeks the records.)
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Bevan’s action. We remand for an evidentiary hearing as to whether the appellees have furnished Bevan all available public records to which he is entitled. If at that time Bevan still pursues his allegation of destruction and concealment, the trial court can re-address the appellees’ requests for discovery concerning Bevan’s knowledge of any alleged concealment or destruction of records.
RYDER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barker v. Barker, 909 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…onfirm counsel’s representation that Hugh was currently unable to submit to the taking of his deposition. . In so doing, we do not establish law of the case on whether the Respondents have standing or stated a cause of action. See Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Allen v. City of Miami, 147 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (explaining that declining to issue a writ of certiorari for failure ió demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law should not be conside…
-
Johnson v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…d, 478 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1985). The successor judge erred in concluding that the previous decision on this subject was the law of the case. A denial of certiorari is not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the petition. See Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Bing v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 498 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Accent Realty of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Crudele, 496 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1987); Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Harriso…
-
Chandler v. The City OF Greenacres, 140 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…, 590 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). “[T]he Public Records Act does not condition the inspection of public records on any requirement that the person seeking to inspect records reveal that person’s background information.” Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So. 2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Furthermore, “[a] requester’s motive for seeking a copy of documents is irrelevant” to the requester’s right to access the records. Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding “the fact…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Tribune Co. v. In re Public Records, 493 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- News-Press Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Gadd, 388 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- DON Mott Agency, Inc. v. Harrison, 362 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)