Rush v. High Springs
82 So. 3d 1108
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- City of High Springs redacted questions and answers from a pre-employment polygraph report under §119.071(1)(a).
- The report was for a candidate applying to be a reserve police officer; three-page document; pages 1–2 contained questions/answers and demeanor, page 3 contained results (inconclusive).
- Rush made public-records requests for the unredacted report; the City provided a redacted version and sought summary judgment.
- Trial court held the exemption applied to the redacted portions; Rush appealed requesting unredacted disclosure; issue is statutory interpretation of the exemption.
- Court reviews de novo; statute’s plain language governs; exemption applies to examination questions and answer sheets for employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §119.071(1)(a) apply to pre‑employment polygraph questions and answers? | Rush contends exemption does not cover polygraph Q&A. | City argues exemption clearly covers exam questions and answers. | Yes; exemption applies to the redacted polygraph questions and answers. |
| Is the exemption limited by subject matter or type of examination? | Exemption should be narrowly construed to protect only technical, not mental-state tests. | No limitation; plain language covers any examination for licensure, certification, or employment. | No subject-matter limitation; applies to polygraph as employment examination. |
| Does using a LEPET or outside examiner affect application of the exemption? | Public availability of LEPET could render records public. | Exemption focuses on government administration; examiner’s独 involvement does not defeat exemption. | Exemption still applies; records remain redacted. |
| Can the exemption extend to summaries of questions/answers, not verbatim content? | Redaction should be limited to verbatim content. | Exemption covers examination questions/answers and summaries thereof. | Exemption extends to redacted questions and answers even as summaries. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. Hayes, 543 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (redacted questions/summaries part of examination testing style and content)
- Wisner v. City of Tampa Police Dep't, 601 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (polygraph in criminal investigation public record; distinguishes from employment exams)
- Downs v. Austin, 522 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (polygraph of criminal defendant could be released for post-conviction motion)
- Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 698 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (exemption not ambiguous; favor disclosure when in doubt)