Leroy K. Kuhnke v. Waupaca County Sheriff's Department
Unpublished per WIS. STAT. RULE § 809.23(1)(b)5. (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An incarcerated person does not have a clear legal right under Wisconsin's public records law to obtain records containing personally identifiable information pertaining to them if those records are collected or maintained in connection with an ongoing complaint or investigation that may lead to an enforcement or court proceeding.
Facts:
- Leroy K. Kuhnke was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in 1996 for a murder that occurred in 1995 and is currently serving his sentence in a state correctional institution.
- On March 20, 2023, Kuhnke requested from the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office all documents related to the investigation into the murders of two named persons that occurred in March 1992, including memos, notes, emails, photos, test results, witness statements, and suspect interviews.
- Kuhnke stated in his request that Sheriff’s Department investigators had considered him a prime suspect in the 1992 murders at the onset of the case and again in 2020.
- On March 24, 2023, the Sheriff’s Office denied Kuhnke’s records request, stating that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing prosecution because the case was still open with the Waupaca County District Attorney’s Office.
- Kuhnke asserted that DNA evidence and statements against self-interest had caused another person to be arrested and charged in relation to the 1992 homicides.
Procedural Posture:
- Leroy K. Kuhnke petitioned the circuit court for Waupaca County for a writ of mandamus to compel the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office to release documents responsive to his request.
- The circuit court dismissed Kuhnke's petition, ruling that the records requested related to an ongoing case.
- Kuhnke, the petitioner, appealed the circuit court's order to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV. The Waupaca County Sheriff's Department was the respondent-appellee.
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 an incarcerated person have a clear legal right under Wisconsin's public records law to obtain records containing personally identifiable information pertaining to them, when those records are part of an ongoing police investigation that may lead to an enforcement or court proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Per curiam
No, an incarcerated person does not have a clear legal right under Wisconsin's public records law to obtain records containing personally identifiable information pertaining to them when those records are part of an ongoing police investigation that may lead to an enforcement or court proceeding. To compel a public officer to perform a duty via a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested action. Wisconsin's public records law, while generally favoring accessibility, includes specific statutory exceptions to disclosure. As an incarcerated person, Kuhnke’s right to request records is limited by WIS. STAT. § 19.32(3) to records containing "specific references" to him, and such requests are analyzed under WIS. STAT. § 19.35(1)(am) for "personally identifiable information." However, WIS. STAT. § 19.35(1)(am)1 provides a clear exception: "Any record containing personally identifiable information that is collected or maintained in connection with a complaint, investigation or other circumstances that may lead to an enforcement action, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or court proceeding, or any such record that is collected or maintained in connection with such an action or proceeding." The Sheriff’s Office denied Kuhnke’s request because the records were part of "an ongoing prosecution" and "open case," which falls squarely within this exception. This exception is not narrowly construed and applies when there is any open complaint or investigation of the described type, not only when it is focused on the requester. When a statutory exception applies, the custodian is not required to engage in a public policy balancing test, nor is an in camera inspection by the court necessary if the records necessarily fall within the statutory exception.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the limitations on public records access for incarcerated individuals under Wisconsin law, particularly when the requested records pertain to ongoing investigations. It clarifies that the statutory exception for ongoing investigations in WIS. STAT. § 19.35(1)(am)1 applies broadly to any such investigation, not just those where the requester is the current subject, and that its application obviates the need for a public policy balancing test or an in camera review. This precedent may make it more difficult for incarcerated individuals to obtain information related to active cases that could potentially aid in post-conviction relief efforts or civil actions, even if they are not directly implicated in the ongoing aspect of the investigation.
