AARON H. HOLLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
BRADFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 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.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of a mandamus petition for public records, holding that the court must conduct an in-camera inspection and evidentiary hearing before determining whether records are exempt from disclosure under Florida's public records law.
A trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection of records and an evidentiary hearing before denying a mandamus petition for public records under section 119.071(2)(f), Florida Statutes.
[1] Before denying a mandamus petition for public records under section 119.071(2)(f), Florida Statutes, a trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection of the records and…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bradford County Sheriff's Department to produce public records under Florida's public records statut…
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 Redaction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandamus seeking the production of public records pursuant to chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2013). We agree. The trial court could not conclude the records were exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2013), without conducting an in-camera inspection of the records and determining whether they could be redacted to remove information identifying confidential informants. See City of St. Petersburg v. Romine ex rel. Dillinger, 719 So.2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Christy v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 698 So.2d 1365, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Walton v. Dugger, 634 So.2d 1059, 1061-62 (Fla.1993); Rameses, Inc. v. Demings, 29 So.3d 418, 421-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Weeks v. Golden, 764 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Moreover, because appellant disputed appellee’s unsworn claim that it did not possess the requested records, the trial court could not deny appellant’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Ferrier v. Public Defender’s Office, 2d Jud. Cir. of Fla., 171 So.3d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Clay Cnty. Educ. Ass’n v. Clay Cnty. Sch. Bd., 144 So.3d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Parish v. State, 59 So.3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Johanson v. State, 872 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Radford v. Brock, 914 So.2d 1066, 1068-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing, including an in-camera inspection of the records if necessary.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 240 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Kline v. Univ. OF Fla., 200 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…nt from the parties and resolve any dispute as to whether there are public records responsive to the request and whether an exemption from disclosure applies in whole or in part to the requested records. See Holley v. Bradford Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 171 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing and, if necessary, an in-camera inspection, to determine [*272] whether the Sheriffs Department possessed the requested records, whether the records were exempt from disclosure,…
-
Executive Off. of the Governor v. AHF MCO of Fla., Inc., 257 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…tion of the records that the asserted exemptions applied and remanding for an in-camera inspection to determine if the records were exempt from disclosure under the alleged exemptions) (citation omitted); Holley v. Bradford Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 171 So. 3d 805, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (similar); Garrison v. Bailey, 4 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (similar); see also Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054, 1058 (Fla. 1993) (reaffirming that “it is for a judge to determine, in an in camera inspection, wh…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Walton v. Dugger, 634 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1993)
- Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Christy v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 698 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Mikael Johanson v. State, 872 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Rivers v. State, 29 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Rameses, Inc. v. Demings, 29 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Clay Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Clay Cnty. Sch. Bd., 144 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Gerry Parish v. State, 59 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Ferrier v. The Pub. Def's. Off., 171 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)