George Campbell, Jr. v. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
M2016-01683-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- George Campbell Jr., an inmate, requested TBI records related to the investigation of Kevin McConico under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA).
- TBI denied the request, stating the materials were part of an investigative file exempt from public disclosure under Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504(a)(2)(A).
- Campbell filed a petition in Wayne County Chancery Court seeking disclosure and attorney’s fees; he later moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied Campbell’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed his TPRA petition, agreeing TBI investigative records are exempt.
- Campbell appealed, arguing the investigation was old/closed and therefore the records should be public; he also sought costs and fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-505.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory construction de novo and affirmed: the TBI records fell squarely within the investigative-records exemption, and Campbell was not entitled to fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TBI must disclose requested records under the TPRA | Records concern a very old/closed investigation, so they are no longer exempt | Records are TBI investigative files and therefore categorically exempt under § 10-7-504(a)(2)(A) | Court held records are exempt; denial affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to costs and attorney's fees under the TPRA | TBI willfully refused disclosure; award fees under § 10-7-505(g) | No willful, improper refusal because exemption applied | Court held no fees awarded since disclosure denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Dick Broad. Co. of Tenn. v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards)
- In re Estate of Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. 2013) (court’s goal is to carry out legislative intent; apply plain meaning when statute is clear)
- Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. 2004) (apply plain statutory meaning when text is clear)