Campus Communications, Inc. v. Earnhardt
821 So. 2d 388 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature may constitutionally create an exemption to its public records laws for sensitive materials like autopsy photographs to protect family privacy and may apply this exemption retroactively, as the public's statutory right of access is not a vested right that would prohibit such remedial legislation.
Facts:
- Dale Earnhardt, a famous professional race car driver, was killed in a crash during the Daytona 500 on February 18, 2001.
- A county medical examiner performed an autopsy on February 19, 2001, during which thirty-three photographs were taken.
- The medical examiner testified that the photographs were not of 'diagnostic quality' and were created only as a backup to the dictated findings for the written autopsy report.
- The written autopsy report, toxicology report, photos of the car, and other related documents were made available to the public.
- Teresa Earnhardt, Dale Earnhardt's widow, expressed concern about the potential release and public dissemination of the graphic autopsy photographs.
- Campus Communications, Inc., the Orlando Sentinel newspaper, and Michael Uribe, who operates a website publishing celebrity autopsy photos, each made requests to inspect and copy the photographs.
- On March 29, 2001, the Florida Legislature enacted section 406.135, a law making autopsy photographs confidential and exempt from public records requests unless a 'good cause' for their release is demonstrated.
Procedural Posture:
- Teresa Earnhardt sought an injunction in a Florida trial court to prevent the Volusia County Medical Examiner from releasing her husband's autopsy photographs.
- The trial court granted an ex parte injunction on February 22, 2001, before any formal requests for the photos were made.
- After public records requests were made by several media entities, the Earnhardts, the medical examiner, and the Orlando Sentinel entered into a mediation agreement to seal the photos permanently; Campus Communications, Inc. was not a party to this agreement.
- Following the passage of section 406.135, the Earnhardts amended their court filing to seek a permanent injunction under the authority of the new statute.
- Campus Communications, Inc. filed a cross-claim against the medical examiner in the trial court, seeking a court order compelling the release of the photographs under the Public Records Act.
- The trial court conducted a trial and entered a final judgment finding the new statute constitutional and retroactively applicable, thereby denying Campus's request for the photographs.
- Campus Communications, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that retroactively exempts autopsy photographs from public disclosure, but allows for their release upon a showing of 'good cause,' unconstitutionally infringe on the public's right of access to public records?
Opinions:
Majority - Sawaya, J.
No, the statute does not unconstitutionally infringe on the public's right of access. A statute that retroactively exempts autopsy photographs from public disclosure is a valid exercise of legislative power. First, the statute is constitutional on its face because it serves the specified public necessity of protecting surviving family members from the trauma and emotional injury that would result from the dissemination of graphic autopsy photographs, particularly via the internet. It is not overly broad because it is narrowly tailored to apply only to photographs, videos, and audio recordings of an autopsy, leaving other records like the written report publicly available, and it includes a 'good cause' provision for release in appropriate circumstances. Second, the statute's retroactive application is permissible because the Legislature clearly intended it and the statute is remedial in nature. It does not impair a vested right, as the public's right to access records is a public right subject to legislative change, not a fixed, private vested right protected from retroactive legislation. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Campus failed to show 'good cause' for release, as the photos were not needed to evaluate government performance and their release would cause a serious intrusion into the family's privacy, with similar information already available in the written report.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legislature's authority to carve out privacy-based exemptions from public records laws, particularly in response to high-profile events and the challenges posed by the digital age. By classifying the public's right of access as a 'public right' rather than a 'vested right,' the court established a precedent allowing for the retroactive application of remedial statutes that limit public access to sensitive information. This ruling significantly shifts the balance between the public's right to know and an individual's, or their family's, right to privacy, providing a strong legal basis for protecting the dignity of the deceased and their families from the potential harm of public exposure.
