JEROME ERIC BIVENS W
v.
GREGORY TONY, SHERIFF AND STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
An agency has no duty under the Public Records Act to respond to questions about an employee's qualifications where the requester did not request production of records for inspection and copying.
[1] The Florida Public Records Act requires agencies to provide access to public records for inspection and copying, but does not obligate them to answer specific questions b…
[2] A petition for writ of mandamus is legally insufficient if it seeks to compel an agency to answer questions rather than to produce records for inspection and copying.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Nothing in the plain language of section 119.01 or the Florida Constitution requires agencies to pore through their own records to answer specific questions.”
Court's explanation of the scope of the Public Records Act
Jerome Eric Bivens sought mandamus to compel the Broward County Sheriff to produce public records. Bivens asked the Sheriff to respond to several ques…
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 Proper Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for mandamus to compel the production of public records from the Broward County Sheriff. Section 119.01(1), Florida Statutes (2022), provides that agencies have the duty to “provide access” to public records and public records “are open for personal inspection and copying by any person[.]” In this case, appellant did not request the production of records for inspection and copying but instead asked the Sheriff to respond to several questions about an employee’s qualifications. Nothing in the plain language of section 119.01 or the Florida Constitution requires agencies to pore through their own records to answer specific questions. See Jones v. Miami Herald Media Co., 198 So. 3d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (instructing that the Public Records Act may not be “expand[ed] . . . beyond its plain language”); Fla. League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397, 401 (Fla. 1992) (“Mandamus may not be used to establish the existence of . . . a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law.”). Thus, the petition for writ of mandamus was properly denied, as it was legally insufficient.
2
Moreover, appellant never served the petition on the Sheriff, who was the agency head required to respond. Instead, appellant served the Office of the Attorney General. Therefore, the petition was also insufficient, as it was directed against the wrong agency.
Affirmed. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992)
- Jones v. Miami Herald Media Co., 198 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)