320 P.3d 1250
Idaho2014Background
- Wade, seeking records of an officer-involved shooting, requested ISP, Fruitland PD, and Payette County records from Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney (CCPA) under IPRA.
- The district court ordered disclosure to Wade and his counsel; CCPA appealed, and the court vacated the disclosure order on appeal.
- The records include Wade’s medical and personal data, police reports, witness interviews, 911 audio, and photos/video.
- CPPA argued disclosure would interfere with ongoing enforcement or deprive a right to a fair trial; Wade argued records were active but should be disclosed.
- Idaho law distinguishes active vs inactive investigatory records under 9-335, with exemptions applying if disclosure risks enumerated harms.
- The court ultimately vacated the district court’s disclosure order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wade’s records were active or inactive under 9-335 | Wade—records were completed and in CCPA’s hands; inactive. | CCPA—records were under active prosecutorial review. | Active prosecutorial review; records not inactive. |
| Whether CCPA met the burden to show a reasonable probability of harms under 9-335(1) | CCPA failed to prove harm would result from disclosure. | CCPA showed potential harms; need not prove certainty. | CCPA must show reasonable probability of harm; standard clarified. |
| Whether the district court erred by analyzing the exemption at the hearing rather than at the denial | Error to focus on later decision time. | Remand appropriate to assess exemption timing. | Remand required; focus on denial time. |
| Whether the district court properly separated exempt and nonexempt records and disclosed nonexempt material | Nonexempt material should be disclosed; improper to limit. | Must separate exempt vs nonexempt; nonexempt material available. | District court failed; remand to separate and disclose nonexempt. |
| Whether disclosure restrictions limiting use to Wade and his counsel were permissible | Requests should be unrestricted if nonexempt. | Restrictions permissible under 9-342(3), 9-344(2) | Restrictions to use were improper; cannot limit nonexempt disclosures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolger v. Lance, 137 Idaho 792 (Idaho 2002) (burden on agency to show exemptions; disclosure could interfere with proceedings)
- Henry v. Taylor, 152 Idaho 155 (Idaho 2012) (attorney fees; exclusive basis for such an award under 9-344(2))
- City of Pocatello v. State, 152 Idaho 830 (Idaho 2012) (Rule 59(e) and timing considerations in post-judgment challenges)
- Idaho Conservation League v. Idaho State Dep’t of Agric., 146 P.3d 632 (Idaho 2006) (objective standard for whether records are public; exemptions narrowly construed)
- Federated Publ’ns, Inc. v. Boise City, 915 P.2d 21 (Idaho 1996) (public records open unless statute provides express exemption)