SPRING 2005 NEWSLETTER GEORGIA FOI ACCESS
GEORGIA FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION

AROUND THE SOUTH

ALABAMA

Alabama Open Meetings Act, signed by Gov. Riley and replacing a 1915 measure, becomes effective Oct. 1

Tuscaloosa, March 23, 2005 -- Alabama Gov. Bob Riley in mid-March signed into law new guarantees that government meetings be open, repealing the state's 90-year-old open meetings law and ending a two-year battle for reform sparked by a state Supreme Court decision. Both legislative houses unanimously approved the bill.

The original law dates to 1915 and was essentially "a vague statement of principles. It had no guidelines to follow in terms of going into executive sessions, it had no notice provision . . . it was just totally void of any specifics," said Felicia Mason, executive director of the Alabama Press Association.

The vagueness of the old law -- which remained virtually unchanged for 90 years -- opened the door for narrow judicial interpretations, most notably the unanimous 2003 Alabama Supreme Court opinion in Auburn University v. The Advertiser Co., which said that government bodies' committees and subcommittees were not open.

The new law extends the definition of "government body" to include "advisory committees or subcommittees of, or appointed by, the body."

The law, which becomes effective Oct. 1 and is modeled after other state open meeting laws, also outlines notice requirements for public meetings. Notices shall include the time, date, and place of the meeting and generally must be posted seven days in advance. It guarantees anyone attending the right to record a meeting. Governmental bodies, which are obligated to keep records of their meetings, can have their actions invalidated by a court if they were taken during a meeting that violates the law.

The new law authorizes governmental bodies to meet secretly when discussing select public employees' job performance, litigation, certain security-related issues, and plans to purchase or sell property.

Rep. Blaine Galliher (R-Etowah) and Sen. Zeb Little ( D-Cullman) sponsored the bill.

Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

FLORIDA

Florida law punishing internal-investigation leaks violates the First Amendment

Atlanta, March 24, 2005 -- A Key West weekly newspaper publisher who was arrested for reporting details of a complaint he filed against a local police officer may proceed with his civil suit against the city, a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled Tuesday.

The Eleventh U.S. Court of Appeals held that a Florida law prohibiting leaks by any participant in an internal police investigation, including the person who filed the complaint, violates the First Amendment.

By "proscribing speech critical of government officials, [the law] purports to regulate speech which 'lies near the core of the First Amendment' without a compelling justification for doing so," Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote for the three-judge panel.

Dennis Reeves Cooper, editor and publisher of Key West The Newspaper, published a series of articles in May and June 2001, claiming that Key West Police investigator Robert Christensen failed to investigate a citizen's complaint of perjury against another officer. As a result of the information he gathered, Cooper subsequently filed his own complaint against Christensen with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The department notified Cooper that it had instructed Key West's then-Police Chief Gordon Dillon to look into the matter and report back within 45 days.

In June 2001, Christensen reported in his newspaper that he had filed a complaint against Christensen and that the department had given Dillon 45 days to investigate it. One week later, Cooper published a commentary recounting his allegations against Christensen and urging Dillon to "tell the truth . . . and let the chips fall where they may." That same day, Dillon obtained a warrant for Cooper's arrest for allegedly violating Florida law chapter 112533(4), by naming Christensen as the target of the investigation and stating that Dillon had 45 days to respond to the department.

The law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who participates in a law enforcement agency's internal investigation to disclose any information learned as a result of the investigation before it becomes public record. With the help of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Cooper sued Dillon for enforcing the law, claiming it imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on his speech.

"This was just a case of a publisher publishing the truth," Cooper told The Associated Press.

A federal district judge dismissed Cooper's suit in February, finding that the statute was content-neutral and not unconstitutional. Cooper appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

The appeals court ruled that the statute was not a prior restraint because it "did not silence Cooper before he could speak." Rather, the law aimed to stifle a particular kind of speech, pertaining to "pending investigations of law enforcement officers," the court ruled. As a content-based restriction on speech, the law therefore had to be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest.

Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

ARKANSAS

After he barred coverage of remarks made in open court, county judge's sealed documents are ordered turned over to high court

Little Rock, March 15, 2005 -- Documents that an Arkansas county judge sealed after barring a newspaper from publishing remarks made in open court must be turned over to the state Supreme Court so it can decide whether the do-not-publish order is a prior restraint.

The sealed documents, which the Phillips County Circuit Court has 30 days to submit to the high court, deal with a matter heard by the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, the disciplinary board for judges in the state.

At a Jan. 6 circuit court hearing in an underlying case, an issue that was pending before the commission was discussed in open court. A day later, Judge L.T. Simes ordered that parties in the case, their attorneys and the Daily World of Helena to refrain from "speaking, writing, printing, distributing or disseminating" information about the commission matter publicly discussed at the hearing.

The World asked the state Supreme Court to declare Simes' order an unconstitutional prior restraint that violates the First Amendment. The circuit court argued that the commission matter was not yet public information and should remain confidential. The circuit court also argued that its order was so narrow as not to infringe on the newspaper's free-speech rights.

Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press