AL HB36 | 2019 | Regular Session

The purpose of the Open Records Act is to allow private citizens access, on demand, to records that would allow them to monitor the manner in which public officers discharge their public duties. Stone v. Consolidated Publ’g Co., 404 So.2d 678, 681 (Ala.1981); Munger v. State Bd. for Registration of Architects, 607 So.2d 280, 284 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (quoting Stone, infra); and Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Talladega v. Consolidated Publ'g, Inc., 892 So.2d 859, 862 (Ala.2004). In Stone, the Supreme Court stated in considering a citizen’s public records request the agency should “balance the interest of the citizens in knowing what their public offices are doing in the discharge of public duties against the interest of the general public in having the business of government carried on efficiently and without undue interference.” The Court established the following limited exceptions to the general rule of disclosure: (1) recorded information received by a public officer in confidence; (2) sensitive personnel records; (3) pending criminal investigations; and (4) records the disclosure of which would be detrimental to the best interests of the public.” Op. Att’y Gen. Ala. No. 2015-057.As stated by the Alabama Supreme Court in Tennessee Valley Printing Co., Inc. v. Health Care Authority of Lauderdale County, 61 So.3d 1027, 1030 (Ala. 2010): “It is clear from the wording of [the Open Records Act] that the legislature intended that the statute be liberally construed. In addition, we note, statutes intended for the public benefit are to be construed in favor of the public. (emphasis added); Gant v. Warr, 286 Ala. 387, 240 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1970).’ Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Talladega v. Consolidated Publ’g, Inc., 892 So.2d 859, 862 (Ala. 2004).” “[T]he party refusing disclosure shall have the burden of proving that the writings or records sought are within an exception and warrant nondisclosure of them.” (emphasis added); Chambers v. Birmingham News Co., 552 So.2d 854, 856-57 (Ala.1989).” This bill seeks to overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent by essentially exempting from Alabama's open records laws recordings made in the ordinary course of business of law enforcement agencies, changing the burden of going forward with the evidence to the requestor, limiting the right of appeal, and denying the prevailing party attorney's fees. It should not be enacted.