WPCB tzh-%a13/}E-tF^%l^o1"3tDo¤o)pAo螺3V'^f$y'bGe6p!wS(O8 7 9 ai7Yg'զw'<#zV4nN =_~^nɺH׻4E= КelBp CˮsraSs}+#!L$5_43b?9ܷb*r!,b#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m } h 0D.Nr 0Ut 0E 0 0s 02 0 0 0K 0 0 0X 0) 0 0 00 0 0l 0 0 0P 0 0 0x! 0" 0"bR# 0Z# 0# 0v$ 0(% 0% 0>& 0& 0' 0( 0) 0* 0b+ 0D, 0, 02- 0. 0:. 0Y8/ 0_/ 0 / 00 0|2 B*4 D/4 04 D/6 07 067 08 0:9 0^V9 0<9 1e9U6U:U>: 0:U*; 1u; 72S< B<< 0> D5^? D-? 0K?? AS @^@ 0$A 0DA A B\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4,,,,0_/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularp)/:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU s R5$      1    _Anoathofidentityisaswornstatementmadebyavoterwhoarrivesatapollingsitewithnoformof  identification;thevoterswearstohisorheridentityandisallowedtovote.Afailsafeaffidavitisonesignedbyavoter t whohasmovedbuthasnotregisteredthechangeofaddresswiththeElectionCommissionpriortotheelection.The 8 votersignsafailsafeaffidavitandisthenallowedtovoteinhisorhernewhomeprecinct.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h - -()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?S%2A`Arial?  SQ\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dE)1dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?S%2A`Arial?  SQ\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  E)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman(|G25$ !.8dd8         0  %2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti) d  COAT.C.A.Tenn.R.App.P.Goddard P.J.SwineyGreenholtz DzikTennesseean TBI T]he"DaimlerChryslerDockeryTenn.AppmootnessA.L.R.McCanlessRivieriaTheatreBolling W]enondisclosure O]ur a]ll CPCnondisclosing(|3G~$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G~$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8QXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ &   May8,2003Session L XQX #XXQ#CHATTANOOGAPUBLISHINGCOMPANY,etal.v.HAMILTON J COUNTYELECTIONCOMMISSION,etal.XQX   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  ^ @@No.021296W.FrankBrown,III,Chancellor  J FiledOctober31,_2003_ "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200300076COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A        InthiscaseinvolvingtheTennesseePublicRecordsAct,theissueiswhethertheAppellee  HamiltonCountyElectionCommissionshouldhavebeencompelledtoreleasetotheAppellant x certainrecordsrelatingtotheDemocraticprimaryelectioninHamiltonCountyheldonMay7,2002. d TheTrialCourtheldthatalthoughthedocumentswerepublicrecords,theywerealsoinvestigative P recordsoftheTennesseeBureauofInvestigation( TBI)andthussubjecttotheexceptionfound < atT.C.A.107504(a)(2)ofthePublicRecordsAct.Wefindthattherecordsatissuewerenot (x investigativerecordsoftheTBIatthetimetherequestwasmadeandthattheyshouldhavebeen d releasedtotheAppellantChattanoogaPublishingCompany( CPC),andaccordinglyreversethe P TrialCourtsjudgmenttothecontrary.WeaffirmtheTrialCourtsrefusaltoawardattorneysfees < toCPC. (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart  andReversedinPart;CauseRemanded     #XQ#XQX.HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr. t  andD.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. `!  AnthonyA.JacksonandBruceC.Bailey,Chattanooga,fortheAppellants,ChattanoogaPublishing 8#" Company,TomGriscomandAndyDrury $$t# JerryH.SummersandThomasGreenholtz,Chattanooga,fortheAppellees,HamiltonCounty %L!% ElectionCommissionandFranDzik,inherofficialcapacityasAdministratorofElections &8"& AlfredH.KnightandAlanD.Johnson,Nashville,forAmicusCuriaeTheTennesseean ($( RichardL.Hollow,Knoxville,forAmicusCuriaeTennesseePressAssociation *%*   OPINION #XXQ4 #XQX p,',  \-(- _#XXQ #  XQX  OnMay7,2002,aprimaryelectionwasheldinHamiltonCounty.Shortlythereafter,on  May15,2002,theHamiltonCountyElectionCommissionselectedAppelleeFranDzikas  AdministratorofElections.Ms.Dziktestifiedthatatsomepointshortlyafterthegeneralelection  onNovember7,2002,shebeganto receiveinformationfromvarioussourcesaboutsomepossible t irregularitiesthatmayhaveoccurredintheelectoralprocess. `   OnNovember18,2002,thepetitioner,CPC,requestedcopiesofthe recordsastheyexisted 8  onMay7,2002ofallregisteredvotersinDistrict4ofHamiltonCounty.CPCalsorequestedthe $ t recordsshowingthenamesoftheindividualswhovotedintheMay7Democraticprimaryforthe  ` District4CountyCommissionseat.OnDecember10,2002,CPCrequested,amongotherthings,  L  copiesofalloathsofidentityandfailsafeaffidavitspertainingtotheDistrict4primaryelection.  #  1      ׀  8  RepresentativesofCPCmetwithMs.DzikinherofficeonDecember10andpresentedtherequest $  orallyandinwriting.     Laterthatsameday,Ms.DzikmetwithHamiltonCountyDistrictAttorneyGeneralBillCox   concerninghersuspicionsofpossiblevoterfraudinDistrict4.Ms.Dzikhadpreviouslycontacted   AttorneyGeneralCoxtoinformhimofherconcernsinthisregard.TwomembersoftheTBIwere p alsopresentatthisDecember10meeting. \   OnDecember11,thenextday,pursuanttotheTBIsrequest,Ms.Dzikturnedover68fail 4 safeaffidavitsand11oathsofidentity,allofwhichwerefromDistrict4,totheTBI.TheElection  p Commissionretainedcopiesofallthedocumentsturnedover,whicharethedocumentsatissuein  \ thiscase.Ms.Dzikstatedthatshewasinstructednottoprovidetherecordstoanyoneelse;she H couldnotrememberwhetheritwastheTBIagentsorAttorneyGeneralCoxwhomadethisrequest. 4 ShecompliedwiththeinstructionandrefusedtogiveCPCcopiesoftherequesteddocuments.Ms.   DzikdidsupplyCPCwithalloftheotherdocumentsitrequested.     OnDecember12,2002,CPC,whichisthepublisheroftheChattanoogaTimesFreePress,  TomGriscom,executiveeditorofthenewspaper,andAndyDrury,areporterforthenewspaper,  filedapetitiontoobtainpublicrecordspursuanttoT.C.A.107503etseq.,theTennesseePublic l RecordsAct.TheTrialCourtenteredanordertoshowcausewhythepetitionshouldnotbegranted. X  TheElectionCommissionfiledananswerinresponsetothepetition,whichallegedasfollows: D! 8  8`   [T]heRespondentshavenotdisclosedoathsofidentity,failsafe #l! affidavits,orchangesofvoteraddressespertainingtotheMay7 $X" electioninDistrict4.Inaddition,Respondentshavenotdisclosedthe $D # ballotformsforDistrict4,pollworkerpayrollrecordsforDistrict4, %0!$ andalistofpollworkersforDistrict4withpartyaffiliation.These &"% itemsareconfidentialrecordswithinthemeaningofTennesseeCode  Annotatedsection107504(a)(2)asconstitutingpartofthe  investigativefileoftheTennesseeBureauofInvestigation,whichis  presentlycontemplatingwhethertoinitiateaninvestigationinto t votingirregularitiesinDistrict4.`` x` x   AfterahearingheldonDecember18,2002,theTrialCourtruledthattherecordswere 8   investigativerecordsoftheTBIandthusconfidentialunderT.C.A.107504(a)(2).Petitioners $ t haveappealedthisruling.AmicicuriaetheTennesseePressAssociationandTheTennesseeanhave  ` eachfiledabriefsupportingthePetitionerspositionandarguingthattheTrialCourtsinterpretation  L  ofthePublicRecordsActwaserroneous.  8    Attheoutset,wemustdeterminetheissueofwhetherthisappealismoot,asisarguedbythe   ElectionCommission.OnApril7,2003,theRespondentsfiledamotionstatingthatthey havebeen   advisedbyDistrictAttorneyGeneralBillCoxthatthe[TBI]hasconcludeditsinvestigationandthat   therenolongerexistsareasonfortherecordstoremainexemptfromdisclosureundertheTennessee   PublicRecordsAct.TheCourtgrantedthismotionandorderedtherecordsunsealedandreleased p tothePetitioners. \   ItiswellsettledthatinordertoinvokethejurisdictionoftheCourts,theremustbeagenuine 4 andlivecontroversybetweenthepartieswhichnecessitatesadjudicationofpresentrightsbythe  p Court.Carsonv.DaimlerChryslerCorp.,anunreportedopinionofthisCourtfiledinJacksonon  \ March19,2003.InthecaseofDockeryv.Dockery,559S.W.2d952(Tenn.App.1977),thisCourt H discussedatlengththemootnessdoctrineandthe publicinterestexceptiontothedoctrine,stating 4 inrelevantpartasfollows:   8  8`   [I]nNewRivieriaArtsTheatrev.State,219Tenn.652,412S.W.2d  890,893(1967)...theCourtfollowedthegeneralexceptiontothe  [mootnessdoctrine]:` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xWhiletherulethatthisCourtwillnotdecideamoot X  questionisapplicablewhenthequestionfor D! determinationaffectsonlyrightsandclaimspersonal 0"  totheparties,anexceptioniswellrecognizedwhen #l! interestsofapubliccharacterandofimportanceinthe $X" administrationofjusticegenerallyareinvolved.$D #   8  8`   Consequently,anappellatecourtinTennesseemayentertainan &"% appealforfinaldeterminationifitinvolvesquestionsofpublic '#& interesteventhoughithasbecomemootsofarastheparticularaction (#' orpartiesareconcerned.)$(` x` x  8  8`      *0h` x` x0hxhx*0xx0pxx*|*%)pxpx 8  8`   "Itisnoteasytostateanyhardandfastrulesbywhichquestions   whichareofsufficientpublicinteresttojustifyrefusaltodismissan  appealwhichhasbecomemoot...maybedistinguishedfrom  questionswhicharenotofsuchinterest,sincethematterrests t generallyinthediscretionoftheappellatecourtineachparticular ` case."132A.L.R.1188-1189.However,thestartingpointisto L  determinethemeaningof"publicinterest."Generally,publicinterest 8  "meanssomethingmorethanthattheindividualmembersofthe $ t publicareinterestedinthedecisionoftheappealfrommotivesof  ` curiosityorbecauseitmaybearupontheirindividualrightsorserve  L  asaguidefortheirfutureconductasindividuals."132A.L.R.1189.  8  Thetypesofissuesthecourtsarelikelytoresolvedespitetheir $  mootnessare: ` x` x 8  8`   (1)questionsthatarelikelytoarisefrequently; ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (2)questionsinvolvingthevalidityorconstructionofstatutes;p` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (3)questionsrelatingtoelections;H` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (4)questionsrelatingtotaxation,revenue,orgovernmentalfinancial  p affairs; \` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (5)questionsrelatingtotheconductofpublicofficersorbodies;4` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (6)questionsinvolvingthegovernmentalregulationofpublic   utilities;and` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (7)questionswhichmustnecessarilybecomemootbeforetheappeal  canbeheard.l` x` x 8  8`   SeetheAnnotationat132A.L.R.1185-1190forcasesfromdifferent D! jurisdictionssupportingeachcategory.0" ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   InthisStateamootedissueiswithinthepublicinterestif"itisone $X" ofgreatpublicimportance,aswhereitinvolvesadeterminationof $D # publicrightsorinterestsunderconditionswhichmayberepeatedat %0!$ anytime."McCanlessv.Klein,supra188S.W.2dat747.&"%` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x Dockery,559S.W.2dat954,955. (#'   InWebberv.Bolling,anunreportedopinionofthisCourtfiledinJacksononDecember13, |*%) 1989,anothercaseinvolvingthePublicRecordsAct,theCourtrejectedtheappelleesmootness h+&* argumentwheretheappelleesinitiallyrefusedtodisclosetheinformationsoughtbythepetitioner,  butthepetitionerwaslaterabletoobtaintheinformationthroughthediscoveryprocess.The  WebberCourtaddressedthemootnessissueasfollows:  8  8`   [W]ebelievethatthismatterregardingtheaccessibilityofpublic ` recordsisamatterofgreatpublicconcernandisofimportanceinthe L  administrationofjustice.Accordingly,wewillconsiderthisissue.8 ` x` x Inthecaseatbar,webelievetheaccessibilityofpublicelectionrecords,andtherightofthepublic  L  toassureitselfthattheelectionprocessisfree,fair,andtransparent,islikewiseofgreatpublic  8  concern.The publicinterestexceptiontothemootnessdoctrineisapplicableinthiscase,andwe $  willconsidertheissue.     ThefollowingportionsoftheTennesseePublicRecordsActarerelevantandcontrollingin   thiscase:     T.C.A.107503 \ #=8  8`   (a)Exceptasprovidedin10-7-504(f),allstate,countyand 4 municipalrecords...shallatalltimes,duringbusinesshours,beopen  p forpersonalinspectionbyanycitizenofTennessee,andthosein  \ chargeofsuchrecordsshallnotrefusesuchrightofinspectiontoany H citizen,unlessotherwiseprovidedbystatelaw.4` x` x    `   T.C.A.107505   V?    8  8`   (a)AnycitizenofTennesseewhoshallrequesttherightofpersonal  inspectionofanystate,countyormunicipalrecordasprovidedin` x` x 8  8`   10-7-503,andwhoserequesthasbeeninwholeorinpartdeniedby l theofficialand/ordesigneeoftheofficialorthroughanyactor X  regulationofanyofficialordesigneeofanyofficial,shallbeentitled D! topetitionforaccesstoanysuchrecordandtoobtainjudicialreview 0"  oftheactionstakentodenytheaccess.#l!` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x   8 ` 8 ` x` x  *0h  0h h *0  0p  *$D #p p  8  8`   (c)Theburdenofproofforjustificationofnondisclosureofrecords &"% soughtshallbeupontheofficialand/ordesigneeoftheofficialof '#& thoserecordsandthejustificationforthenondisclosuremustbe (#' shownbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.)$(` x` x  8  8`   |*%)` x` x 8  8`   (d)Thecourt,inrulinguponthepetitionofanypartyproceeding   hereunder,shallrenderwrittenfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw  andshallbeempoweredtoexercisefullinjunctiveremediesandrelief  tosecurethepurposesandintentionsofthissection,andthissection t shallbebroadlyconstruedsoastogivethefullestpossiblepublic ` accesstopublicrecords.L ` x` x   Incasesconstruingthisstatute,ourSupremeCourthasconsistentlyandrepeatedly $ t emphasizedthelegislativemandateto interpretthetermsoftheActliberallytoenforcethepublic  ` interestinopenaccesstotherecordsofstate,countyandmunicipalgovernmentalentities.  L  MemphisPublishingCo.v.CherokeeChildren&FamilyServices,Inc.,87S.W.3d67,74  8  (Tenn.2002)(notingthat theActservesacrucialroleinpromotingaccountabilityingovernment $  throughpublicoversightofgovernmentalactivities.);seealsoTennesseeanv.ElectricPowerBd.   ofNashville,979S.W.2d297(Tenn.1998);MemphisPublishingCo.v.CityofMemphis,871   S.W.2d681(Tenn.1994)( [O]urcourtshavebeenvigilantinupholdingthisclearlegislative   mandate,eveninthefaceofseriouscountervailingconsiderations.);Griffinv.CityofKnoxville,   821S.W.2d921(Tenn.1991);MemphisPublishingCo.v.Holt,710S.W.2d513(Tenn.1986). p   TheElectionCommissionreliesontheexceptionfoundatT.C.A.107504(a)(2),which H statesthat [a]llinvestigativerecordsoftheTennesseebureauofinvestigation...shallbetreatedas 4 confidentialandshallnotbeopentoinspectionbymembersofthepublic.Aspreviouslynoted,  p theTrialCourtfoundthattherecordsatissuecamewithinthisexceptionandruledagainsttheir  \ disclosure. H   Itisundisputedthattheelectionrecordsinthiscaseare publicrecordswithintheambitof   theAct.ItisalsoundisputedthatatthetimeCPCrequestedthedocuments,neithertheoriginal   documentsnorphotocopiesofthemwereinthepossessionoftheTBI,norwasthereany  investigationunderwayoftheMay7HamiltonCountyprimary.Bythetimeofthepetitionfiledtwo  daysaftertherequest,Ms.DzikhadmadetheTBIawareofherconcernsregardingtheelection.By  thetimeofthehearingsomeeightdaysafterCPCsrequest,aTBIinvestigationwasarguably l underway.AnagentoftheTBIwhotestifiedatthehearingnotedthat noonewiththeTBIhadany X  rolewhatsoeverinthecreationofthesedocuments. D!   Weareoftheopinionthatbecausetheelectionrecordswereunquestionablypublicrecords #l! fromthetimeoftheircreationinMayof2002,andbecausetherewerenoapplicableexceptionsto $X" thelegislativemandateofaccessibilityatthetimeCPCmadetherequestforthem,theyshouldhave $D # beenreleasedtoCPC.Toholdotherwise,andtherebyallowagovernmentalagencytoshield %0!$ otherwisepublicinformationfromthedaylightofpublicscrutinysubsequenttoarequestunderthe &"% Act,would,asnotedbyamicicuriae,presentthepotentialforabuseoftheTBIbysuchanagency. '#& SuchaninterpretationwouldalsoruncountertoboththeletterandspiritofthePublicRecordsAct. (#'  _ |*%)   CPCarguesthattheTrialCourtshouldhaveawardeditsattorneysfees,citingT.C.A.107   505(g),whichstates:  8  8`   Ifthecourtfindsthatthegovernmentalentity,oragentthereof, t refusingtodisclosearecord,knewthatsuchrecordwaspublicand ` willfullyrefusedtodiscloseit,suchcourtmay,initsdiscretion, L  assessallreasonablecostsinvolvedinobtainingtherecord,including 8  reasonableattorneys'fees,againstthenondisclosinggovernmental $ t entity. `` x` x ЀInArnoldv.CityofChattanooga,19S.W.3d779(Tenn.App.1999),thisCourtnotedthatthe  8   knowingandwillfulstandardcontainedinthisstatute issynonymouswithbadfaith.Westated $  thattheCourt willnotimputetothe[governmentalentity]adutytoforetellanuncertainjudicial   future.InthepresentcaseneithertheactionsofMs.DziknortheElectionCommissionroseto   thelevelofbadfaith.TheTrialCourtexpresslyfoundasfollowsinthisregard:   8  8`   ThisCourt,basedontheevidence,doesnotfindanythingwhich p wouldsuggestinanyway,shape,formorfashionthatMs.Dzikis \ tryingtoplayfastandloosewiththerecordsorthatsheistryingto H usetheTBItocoversomethinguporhideit.4` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtholdingtherequestedelection  \ recordsconfidentialandinaccessibletothepublicisreversed.TheTrialCourtsjudgmentdeclining H toawardCPCattorneysfeesisaffirmed.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainsttheAppellees, 4 HamiltonCountyElectionCommissionandMs.DzikinherofficialcapacityasAdministratorof   Elections.      `     h   _________________________________________ X     `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE