The Virginia FOIA Opinion Archive

Several media companies joined forces to request a judicial order that would unseal affidavits supporting search warrants related to U.S. antiterrorist efforts. They also wanted the district court to maintain a public docket of search warrant proceedings. The 4th Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that denied those requests. Although the press has a qualified common-law right to see judicial documents, that right is not as strong as a First Amendment right, and can be overridden at a judge’s discretion. The magistrate judge had ruled within her discretion that unsealing the affidavits would hamper an ongoing investigation, and that the government’s reasons for secrecy were compelling. Furthermore, the press and public have no right to advance notice of a request to seal such records. Instead, journalists and other citizens may object after the fact, when they see the public record of a sealing order.

It is not necessary for a plaintiff asking for a writ of mandamus under FOIA to prove that he has no other adequate remedy at law. Agency's provision of sought-after records after litigation has been initiated over access to those records does not moot case.

Board of Dentistry meeting minutes were inadequate, did not include even a summary of the discussion on a particular subject and decision. Attorney fees awarded for FOIA violation. No wilful violation found.

NOTE: Scroll to end for another ruling in a district court proceeding, June 10, 2005, between Albright and the Attorney General over advance-estimating of costs for filling a FOIA request.

Lee H. Albright v. William Woodfin et al., CL05-0006, Nelson County Circuit Court

May 26, 2005

Judge J. Michael Gamble

Jordan, a resident of Colonial Heights, published advertisements criticizing the mayor for allowing low-income housing to be built in the city. In fact, the mayor had opposed the construction of the housing, and he sued for defamation. But the Court ruled that the mayor was a 'public official' required to show 'actual malice' in the case. Jordan testified that his ads were based on a certain newspaper article that supported his assertions. The Court found that he believed his advertisements represented the facts of the situation and had an objective reason for so believing. Because there was no clear and convincing evidence that Jordan’s ads were fabricated by him or a product of his imagination, there was no malice. The trial court should have granted Jordan’s motion to strike the evidence and set aside the jury's verdict.

The Virginia police objected unsuccessfully to the unsealing of records related to Earl Washington, Jr., who was wrongly sentenced to death for rape and murder. After DNA evidence led to a pardon for Washington, media organizations asked for police documents relating to the initial investigation, which were subpoenaed in a civil suit Washington brought after his release. The district court found that 14 of these documents deserved First Amendment status, rather than only qualified common-law protection, and ordered their release. The 4th Circuit agreed on ten of those documents, but for four others, ruled that the district court needed to further explain its decision.

Public television and radio station not a public body because less than two-thirds of funding comes from public money, and they do not perform a delegated governmental function.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

Allan D. Zaleski,
Plaintiff

v.

Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission,
Defendant

CH03-1603-3

OPINION AND ORDER

The parties appeared for argument on the demurrer to the bill of complaint.

Proceeding under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, plaintiff seeks disclosure of an advisory opinion given by Counsel to the Judicial Inquiry Review Commission to a judge who verbally made the request and to whom a verbal opinion was given.

City council meeting to discuss performance of city manager improperly strayed into discussion of city's soaring crime rate. No authority for closing a proceeding to present closing arguments in a case challenging the propriety of a closed meeting.

Circuit Court of the City of Richmond

May 5, 2004

Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.
Judge

Thomas W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
Williamson & LaVecchia, L.C.
6800 Paragon Place
Suite 233
Richmond, VA 23230-1652

Vicki W. Harris, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
900 East Broad Street
Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219

Re: Case No. LR-2514-1

Media General Operations, Inc. t/a the Richmond Times Dispatch

v.

City Council of the City of Richmond

Dear Counsel:

FOIA does not apply to members-elect. Exchange of multiple e-mails over a several-hour period not an illegal electronic meeting. Neighborhood meeting no FOIA violation.

Here, a group of media companies asked to intervene in the trial of accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. They sought access to portions of the record and of the pleadings and motions made by the government. The 4th Circuit agreed with their contention that sealing off all such records was unnecessarily restrictive, and agreed to provide access to the records after first redacting classified information. Judicial documents receive First Amendment status when (1) the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public and (2) public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question. Even First Amendment rights can be curtailed, though, in cases of compelling governmental interest -- and the national security concerns here met that standard.

A newspaper publisher brought a 1983 suit for violation of its First Amendment rights, after county sheriff deputies worried about the paper’s Election Day editorials conspired to buy out the paper’s entire stock from vendors across the county. The district court gave summary judgment for the deputies, saying they acted privately and not under color of state law, as a 1983 suit demands. The 4th circuit reversed the summary judgment, though, because: (1) the deputies sought to censor the publisher's criticism of them in their official roles, (2) their official positions were an intimidating asset in the execution of their plan, and (3) this sort of quasi-private conspiracy by public officials was precisely the target of § 1983. Notably, the court found that the deputies' actions bore a sufficiently close nexus with the State to be fairly treated as that of the State itself.

Newspapers asked to obtain DNA evidence from a criminal trial and subject it to retesting under modern methods. The Court affirmed a lower court’s decision to deny that request. The right of access to the courts is not so broadly defined under the United States or Virginia Constitutions. Furthermore, the DNA evidence was not a "public record" under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation is a private entity not subject to FOIA.

An engineer who sued a magazine for defamation had made himself a limited-purpose public figure by his role in choosing and publicizing contracts. He could not show that the magazine acted with . . .actual malice.’

(NOTE: The 2002 General Assembly added an amendment to FOIA reversing this decision and making clear that all constitutional offices are subject to FOI law.)

Present: All the Justices

JAMES G. CONNELL III v ANDREW KERSEY

OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR.

Record No. 001729

June 8, 2001

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jane Marum Roush, Judge

Wilson v. City of Salem/Munley v. City of Salem: Judge Weckstein's opinion

[The case was first heard in General District Court; order below.]

May 3, 2001

Mr. Patrick J. Mannix, Sr.
xxxxxx
Bristol, VA 24201

Mr. J.D. Bowie
Attorney at Law
xxxxxx
Bristol, VA 24203

Re: Patrick J. Mannix, Sr. v. Washington County Board of Supervisors
Circuit Court of Washington County
File No. 01-93

Gentlemen:

Present: All the Justices

YVONNE G. SMITH

v.

RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC., ET AL.

Record No. 000337

January 12, 2001

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
George F. Tidey, Judge

OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR.

In this appeal, we consider whether audio tape recordings of a felony criminal trial are open to inspection by the public under Code § 17.1-208 and, if so, whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the clerk of the trial court to allow such inspection.

BACKGROUND

A man convicted of sexually abusing his step-granddaughter objected when the public and press were removed from the courtroom while she testified. On direct appeal, his lawyer failed to make a 6th Amendment claim to a public trial. The state courts summarily rejected petitioner's state habeas claim that failure to pursue the Sixth Amendment violation on appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The federal district court likewise rejected the claim and petitioner appealed. The court affirmed, finding that the underlying circumstances of the case sufficiently indicated an overriding, compelling interest in protecting a child victim from the embarrassment and trauma, that the closure was narrowly tailored to protect the compelling interest, and that the state court did not unreasonably reject petitioner's Sixth Amendment claims on the basis of an improper denial of a public trial.

No 1st Amendment right of access to government-held information.

Commonwealth Attorney not a public body under FOIA. Criminal incident information need only be summarized; the actual records need not be disclosed.

The Bedford County Circuit Court granted writs of mandamus to two newspapers, ordering that transcripts from several criminal hearings be made public. Two of the hearings involved juveniles and two involved adults accused of sexual crimes, in which numerous juvenile witnesses were required to testify. The Court reversed those writs of mandamus. The newspapers should have pursued their proper legal remedy, which was to intervene in order to have their objections heard.

Document given to city attorney by city manager is protected from mandatory disclosure as attorney-client privilege because it was prepared as part of an active administrative investigation in which legal advice was needed.