to protect constitutional privacy rights of third parties

the video, to protect constitutional privacy rights of third parties.

documents consisting of the sheriff’s completed internal investigation of the incident constituted “active criminal investigative information” and were, therefore, exempt from disclosure.

In all other cases, material which has been made available to the defendant cannot be deemed criminal investigative or intelligence information and must be open to inspection unless some other exemption applies:

(e.g., s. 119.071(2)(e), F.S., exempting all information “revealing the substance of a confession” by a person arrested until there is a final disposition in the case);

or the court orders closure of the material in accordance with its constitutional authority to take such measures as are necessary to obtain orderly proceedings and a fair trial or to protect constitutional privacy rights of third parties. See Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982); Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, 520 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1988); Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida Inc. v. Doe, 612 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1992). And see Morris Communications Company LLC v. State, 844 So. 2d 671, 673n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)

(although documents turned over to the defendant during discovery are generally public records subject to disclosure under Ch. 119, the courts have authority to manage pretrial publicity to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights as described in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Lewis, supra). Cf. Times Publishing Co. v. State, 903 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (while the criminal discovery rules authorize a nonparty to file a motion to restrict disclosure of discovery materials based on privacy considerations, where no such motion has been filed, the judge is not authorized to prevent public access on his or her own initiative).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: