Post-Newsweek Stations v. Doe

Supreme Court of Florida
612 So. 2d 549 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Florida's constitutional right to privacy does not protect an individual's name and address from disclosure when that information is contained in pretrial discovery materials of a criminal case that become public records, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's identity when associated with a criminal investigation.

Facts:

The Broward County Sheriff's Office began an investigation into allegations that Kathy Willets and her husband, Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Willets, were operating a criminal prostitution scheme.
On July 23, 1991, police executed a search warrant at the Willets' home.
During the search, police seized various items, including cassette tapes of phone conversations, business cards, a Rolodex, and lists of alleged customers.
These lists contained the names, addresses, amounts paid, and explicit sexual notations regarding Kathy Willets' customers.
The state subsequently charged Kathy Willets with prostitution, Jeffrey Willets with living off the proceeds of prostitution, and both with illegal wiretapping.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Florida filed criminal charges against Kathy and Jeffrey Willets in the state trial court.
The Willets filed a discovery request seeking all materials seized from their home, including documents identifying the 'John Does.'
Numerous 'John Does' filed a motion in the trial court to deny public access to these discovery materials.
The trial court denied the Does' motion, ordering the release of the names and addresses but reserving judgment on other materials pending an in-camera review.
The Does, as appellants, sought review in the Fourth District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court), which stayed the trial court's order.
The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision but certified two questions of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.

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 the constitutional right to privacy under the Florida Constitution prevent the public disclosure of names and addresses of individuals identified as potential clients in discovery materials for a criminal prostitution case, once those materials become public records under state law?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice McDonald

No. The constitutional right to privacy under the Florida Constitution does not prevent the public disclosure of the names and addresses. Once the state is required to provide discovery materials to a criminal defendant, those materials generally become public records under Florida's Public Records Act. To prevent disclosure, a party must satisfy the test from Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., which requires showing that closure is necessary to avoid substantial injury to an innocent third party or to protect a privacy right. The court held that individuals whose names and addresses are associated with a criminal prostitution scheme have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that identifying information. Because the Does' privacy rights are not implicated when they participate in a crime, they failed to meet their burden to justify closure.

Concurring - Chief Justice Barkett

I concur with the majority's holding that the names and addresses can be disclosed. A full and proper in-camera review by the trial court is the sufficient and proper procedure to protect the constitutional privacy rights of third parties and their statutory right against defamatory disclosures.

Dissenting - Justice Kogan

Yes, the right to privacy should prevent disclosure here. The majority's decision allows the state to brand private individuals as criminals without charging them with a crime or affording them due process. The information regarding the John Does may be unfounded or false, yet its release will irreparably damage their constitutionally protected interest in their good names. This process is more reminiscent of Nathaniel Hawthorne's 'scarlet letter' than modern constitutional law. The case should be remanded for the trial court to determine whether a legitimate public concern exists for releasing the information as to each individual Doe, which is doubtful for private citizens not charged with a crime.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the balance between Florida's robust Public Records Act and its constitutional right to privacy, establishing a significant precedent that diminishes privacy protections for individuals linked to criminal activity. The decision reinforces the high threshold required to shield public records from disclosure, placing the burden of proof on the party seeking secrecy. While the court permitted the release of names and addresses, its reasoning left open the possibility that more intimate or sensitive details within discovery could be protected after an in-camera review, suggesting a content-based approach to privacy rights in public records.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Post-Newsweek Stations v. Doe (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"