Summary 2006 WY 99

Summary of Decision issued August 9, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Sheaffer v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 99

Docket Number: 05-211

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Bill G. Hibbler, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees: Susan C. Weidel, Senior Assistant General Counsel & Special Assistant Attorney General, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in denying inspection of the tape recording, by finding it was not a “public record” as defined by Wyoming Statute § 16-4-201. If the tape recording is a “public record” as defined by Wyoming Statute § 16-4-201, should inspection be denied for any exemption asserted pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 16-4-203. If the Court orders inspection of the tape recording, should it be redacted?

Holding: Sheaffer appeals a determination by the district court that a surreptitious recording of a University of Wyoming committee meeting was not a public record under the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-4-201 et seq.
Standard of Review: The determination of whether or not the tape is a public record required the Court to construe various provisions of the WPRA. The Court’s primary consideration was to determine the legislative intent and because statutory construction is a question of law that review is de novo.
Public record: The question the Court answered in determining whether or not the tape was public record was if it was made by the University or received by it in connection with the transaction of public business. The tape was received into the possession of the director of the University’s Auxiliary Service in connection with the investigation into Appellant’s conduct. Turning to the ordinary and obvious meaning of the word, it was apparent it was “received” by the university. Next the Court determined whether the tape was received in connection with the transaction of public business. A review of the language of WPRA supported the conclusion that the tape was a public record. The implication of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-203(d)(xi) was that records not within any of the enumerated exemptions are public records. The University contended that the content of the tape was irrelevant in that the misconduct was the act of taping itself, and therefore the contents should not be open to public inspection. The WPRA contains no language that could be construed to support that distinction.
Exemption: The Court addressed a second inquiry whether any exemption applied that would allow the record custodian to deny the public the right of inspection. Exemptions are construed narrowly. The University suggests that two exemptions apply to the tape. The first is § 16-4-203(d)(xi) which allows the record custodian to deny public inspection if the record was compiled solely for purposes of investigation. Inspection of the facts of the case indicate the tape was not compiled solely for purposes of the investigation. The second exemption urged by the University was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-203(g). The Court found nothing in the record indicating that the University filed an application pursuant to the subsection.
Redaction: The parties also raised the issue of redaction. The Court has recognized it as an appropriate remedy when portions of an otherwise disclosable public record may be subject to an exemption. The Court determined that the tape recording is a public record under the provisions of the WPRA. To this point in the proceedings, the question of redaction is premature. If the question of redaction becomes relevant during the proceedings on remand, the district court may consider the remedy to the extent raised by any party.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the Court.

Reversed and remanded.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/rhbkz .