Judges: Jim Smith Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/1/1985
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. Charles J. Bradley, R.S. Environmental Health Director II Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District Three Citrus County Public Health Unit 1406 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 32650
Dear Mr. Bradley:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on substantially the following question:
ARE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDA, CORRESPONDENCE, INSPECTION REPORTS OF RESTAURANTS, GROCERY STORES AND OTHER SUCH PUBLIC PREMISES, NUISANCE COMPLAINT RECORDS, AND NOTICES OF VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAWS MAINTAINED BY A COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT SUBJECT TO FLORIDA'S PUBLIC RECORDS LAW?
In your letter of inquiry, you ask whether nuisance complaint records are exempt from public disclosure under the Public Records Law. Subsequent conversations revealed that you also question whether interoffice memoranda, correspondence, inspection reports of restaurants, grocery stores and other such public premises, and notices of violation of public health laws are exempt.
Florida's counties are authorized to cooperate with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereafter H.R.S.) in the establishment and maintenance of full-time public health units for the control and eradication of preventable diseases, and education of the public in modern scientific methods of hygiene, sanitation, and prevention of communicable diseases with respect to public health services programs. Section
Florida's Public Records Law, Ch.
Inter-office memoranda and intra-office memoranda communicating information from one public employee to another or merely prepared for filing, even though not a part of an agency's later, formal public product, would nonetheless constitute public records inasmuch as they supply the final evidence of knowledge obtained in connection with the transaction of official business.
Cf., Orange County v. Florida Land Co.,
An examination of the records in question in the instant inquiry indicates that they all appear to "perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type" and thus under the definition espoused by the Florida Supreme Court in Shevin v. Byron, Harless, supra, are, in my opinion, public records. See, AGO's 77-141 (copies of letters or other documents which are received by a mayor of a municipality in his official capacity are public records); 73-336 (written complaints to H.R.S., Division of Health officials or investigators are public records); 71-360 (records of inspections of nursing homes made by H.R.S. are public records).
Section
I am not aware of any statute which exempts the records in question in the instant inquiry from disclosure or makes such records confidential, nor has any such statutory provision been brought to the attention of this office. Compare, e.g., s. 400.613, F.S. (patient record information obtained by H.R.S. through inspections or reports of nursing homes and related health care facilities are privileged and confidential); s. 409.266(8), F.S. (1984 Supp.) (the complaint and all information obtained by H.R.S. pursuant to an investigation of a medicaid provider relating to an allegation of fraud or financial abuse are confidential). In the absence of any such general or special law specifically excluding the records in question from public inspection by making them confidential, I am of the opinion that they must be disclosed.
In summary, it is my opinion that interoffice memoranda, correspondence, inspection reports of restaurants, grocery stores and other such public premises, nuisance complaint records, and notices of violations of public health laws maintained by county public health units are "public records" within the meaning of s.
Sincerely,
Jim Smith Attorney General
Prepared by:
John Rosner Assistant Attorney General
Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co. , 372 So. 2d 420 ( 1979 )
Douglas v. Michel , 410 So. 2d 936 ( 1982 )
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates, Inc. , 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4104 ( 1980 )
Michel v. Douglas , 10 Fla. L. Weekly 129 ( 1985 )
Forsberg v. HOUSING AUTH. OF CITY OF MIAMI B. , 455 So. 2d 373 ( 1984 )
Orange County v. Florida Land Co. , 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13409 ( 1984 )