Palm Beach Newspapers, LLC v. State
183 So. 3d 480
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jamal Smith charged with first-degree murder; fellow inmate Frederick Cobia identified as a prosecution witness who allegedly acts as a jailhouse informant and discusses special treatment in recorded jail phone calls.
- Smith’s public defender obtained and filed excerpts and later full transcripts of Cobia’s recorded jail calls in the court file and shared them with local defense counsel.
- The Palm Beach Post published articles online and in print quoting the calls and linking to full transcripts; the Post obtained the transcripts from government sources and the court file.
- Cobia moved for a protective order and to seal any court records referencing the calls, arguing a privacy interest; the trial court granted an order requiring removal of transcripts from the Post’s website, prohibiting further disclosure, and sealing filings.
- The Post petitioned for certiorari; the Florida appellate court reviewed whether the prior restraint and sealing complied with First Amendment principles and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior restraint on publishing transcripts | Post: First Amendment protects publication of lawfully obtained, truthful info about a matter of public concern | Cobia: Privacy interest in telephone conversations justifies restraining publication | Publication protected; prior restraint/quashing of publication order granted |
| Sealing court records | Post: Sealing improper; docs were in court file and public domain | Cobia: Court should seal transcripts to protect privacy | Sealing order quashed for failing to satisfy Rule 2.420 requirements; court may reconsider narrowly tailored sealing for specific items |
| Expectation of privacy in inmate jail calls | Post: Inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded jail phone calls | Cobia: Asserts privacy rights in the content of the calls | Florida law: inmates lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in jail phone calls; privacy claim fails |
| Narrow tailoring and alternatives to restraint | Post: Government had less restrictive means; restraining press is not required and ineffective after publication | Cobia: Restraint necessary to protect privacy and prevent dissemination | Court failed to analyze alternatives or narrow tailoring; order ineffective and constitutionally infirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (presumption against prior restraints and high burden to justify censorship)
- Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (truthful reporting of lawfully obtained info about criminal proceedings is strongly protected; government disclosure shifts remedy to government)
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (protection for publication of lawfully obtained, truthful information about public proceedings)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (publisher protected when lawfully obtains truthful info of public concern, even if source acquired it unlawfully)
- McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613 (Florida law: inmates lack reasonable expectation of privacy in phone calls)
- Mosley v. State, 46 So.3d 510 (same principle regarding inmates’ lack of privacy expectation)
- Jackson v. State, 18 So.3d 1016 (same principle regarding inmates’ lack of privacy expectation)
- Bent v. State, 46 So.3d 1047 (distinguishable: whether inmate calls are public records; did not hold calls implicate privacy preventing publication)
- State ex rel. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So.2d 904 (standards for prior restraints under Florida law)
- Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d 113 (sealing orders must satisfy Rule 2.420 and be no broader than necessary)