Hechler v. Casey

for two rea- unpersuasive distinction dant’s 333 S.E.2d 799 First, all clear that it is not at sons. HECHLER, of Ken right make no reasonable landlord has State, Virginia State of West premises. of the tenant’s Sec- inspections cases, the of ond, employment in the heart v. argument job employer’s was that the CASEY, super- Judge great deal of unrestricted required The Honorable Patrick and, therefore, high necessitated vision Court Kanawha Coun Circuit of trustworthiness on Virginia, standard ty, and Southeastern Se West employee. Certainly, if a criminal curity Investigations, & Inc. cannot serve as an absolute bar to record 16700. No. jobs requiring service a measurable public trust, degree of it cannot serve as an Supreme Appeals Court government-subsidized bar absolute Virginia. West housing. across-the-board, exclusionary policy July 5, An 1985. patently espe- too vindictive such as this is Dissenting Opinion Aug. 1985. light public policy this cially State’s reintegrating rehabilitated ex-of- favor society. In

fenders into the mainstream of Court, County 113 W.Va.

Webb (1933), 168 S.E. Court

said:

“Society protected must be from law vio-

lators, punishment and their must be

just with the serious- —commensurate ness of the offense. But the state does punish vengeance. malefactors in against not entertain

She does them

throughout years spirit vindic-

tiveness, is state nor relentless

unforgiving. It the anxious desire of

the state that those of her citizens who laws, transgressed her suffered

have

convictions, paid penalty

law, profit their unfortunate shall

experience make of and thereafter them- good by leading

selves citizens lives

uprightness Society usefulness. result, in plac- and not

interested such-

ing iniquity upon forever the brand frailty

the forehead of one who

humanity departed has from the narrow

path.” Gwinn, Cooper also

298 S.E.2d 781 reasons, foregoing respectfully

For the I I am authorized to that Jus-

dissent. state joins me in dissent.

tice McGraw Brown, Gen., Atty. Gregory

Charlie W. Bailey, Gen., Bethany Boyd, Attys. R. Asst. Charleston, appellant. Zak, Charleston, Joseph appellee

R. Security. Southeastern McHUGH, Justice: original proceeding Secretary In this Virginia for the State of West Secretary”] “the seeks a writ [hereinafter the United restraining against court Rawl members trial prohibition1 orders, essence, of America. two the Mine Workers enforcing, in from Secretary disclos- from enjoining first March, Secretary, pursuant information about ing certain regulations 3.04 his administrative § Security & employees Southeastern investiga- governing private detectives & “S.S. Investigations, Inc. [hereinafter security guards),3 requested (including tors enjoining the second and the I.”] showing the writing & I. a list from S.S. hearing conducting an administrative numbers, names, birthdates, security social private & I.’s determine whether S.S. em- addresses all and current residence detective/investigator’s license should be I. the State ployees of S.S. & stationed is the suspended revoked. Before us or attorney oral- Virginia. West S.S. & I.’s response filed accordance petition, the State, Secretary of deputy ly informed a cause heretofore rule to show with the March, 1985, I. would furnish that S.S. & exhibits, us, including the all issued if requested information the same evidentiary hearings be- transcripts of confidential, kept so as not would be court,2 and oral fore trial briefs health, lives, prop- or endanger further argument of counsel. guards their erty I’s S.S. & that, deputy replied in orally The that trial court exceeded families. We believe the statutory exemp- entering injunctive opinion, none of the jurisdiction in the his its and, Act consequently, we tions from the Freedom of Information question in orders (W.Va.Code, applica- seq.) 29B-1-1 were prohibition, of as moulded. et award the writ

ble. I By a written notice dated March I., Secretary the scheduled an adminis- corporation, in Janu- S.S. & Ohio hearing, pursuant trative to ary, qualified to transact business April 23,1985, [1959],to be Virginia. Shortly West there- 30-18-5 held on the State of after, suspend guards to determine whether to or revoke began supplying security to it detective/investigator I’s li- Processing Company, private and a S.S. & Rawl Sales Massey Company, was be received on two subsidiary of A.T. Coal cense. Evidence to (1) to the plant points: supply at or Loba- S.S. & I.’s failure processing at Rawl’s near addresses, names, etc., ta, security of the County, Virginia. For Mingo West (2) employment & of at guards had been a strike and S.S. I.’s some months there Thus, style guards. preferable to addresses the two being convicted felons had stated to the revoking or a subject license shall be contrary employment in their applications. by review the Circuit Court of Kanawha Each of the three had worked for S.S. & I. County competent juris- “or other court of for less thirty days, than and each of them diction.” discharged had been prior scheduling to the statute, Pursuant to this section of the of the hearing. administrative junction preventing the notice those two issues after conducting a trial court ducting injunctive relief, granted 1985, respecting the two Also on examination of another the April hearing hearing, opportunity 22, 1985, the scheduled for so as to Secretary matters covered a the trial preliminary to determine petition permit from con- April hearing court, the 23, in- property. guards the regulations guard also vate detectives and gust Code, 30-18-1 Secretary promulgated, subject 1, 1975, or furnished to patrol agencies include and define regulations pertaining ^[1960] regulation. investigators. protect persons and or businesses as § effective Au- Included are 2.03 of the watch, W.Va. pri- or permanency on the injunction. Sections 3.03 regulations and 3.04 of the Secretary thereafter moved to dissolve require, alia, applicant inter that an for a court, preliminary injunction, but the trial his, or, license furnish in the case of a May entered denying an order corporate applicant, employees’, all of its 20, the motion to dissolve and setting May name(s) residence(s), and as well as the 1985 as the date for the hearing on the any details of criminal convictions. Sim- permanency injunction. ilarly, 30-18-2(2) re- furnish, quires corporate applicant a in-

II alia, officer, ter for each addition to “[i]n applying prohibition may for a writ of from such further information as be re- Court, quired by in effect to injunc- secretary,” dissolve the information as to against holding character, good competency integrity, administrative and hearing points including any on the two covered whether individual has ever hearing, felony, notice of such ar- been convicted a or other offense not lie the latter does Code, injunction an when set forth W.Va. [1959].4 remedy adequate at there is an noted, infor- because (As regulations require the reme- an administrative law in the form of to the employees, in addition mation for all statute, specifically, the ad- provided by dy officers, for a li- corporate applicant hearing process, which has ministrative regulations echoes 10 of the cense. Section In- exhausted. pursued, much less been employees.) requirement for relief, equitable or ex- junctive like other regulations 4.01 and 4.02 Sections relief, inappropriate when traordinary Secretary, assist- provide that remedy adequate at law. See there is an Safety, Department Public ance of 522, 536-537, Allen, 466 U.S. Pulliam investigation initial to de- conduct an shall 565, 80 L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. character, competency good termine the (1984); Development Corp. v. Allegheny if, in the integrity applicant an and Barati, 273 S.E.2d warranted, Secretary’s opinion it is he will legal remedy form of 386-87 One investigation alleged of an vio- conduct ordinarily adequate is an adminis- private licensee of the detec- lation a “ by statute. ‘In remedy provided trative licensing tive/investigator laws. general, there is an administrative where regulations 9.01 of the sets forth Section statute, it has been remedy provided Secretary’s suspension grounds for the adequate com- plain, a declared to be ” private revocation of a detective/investi- or barring injunctive relief.’ plete remedy, (after licensee and gator license notice to a (4th Woods, 169 F.2d Gates hearing charges). on the Included S.D.W.Va.). Cir.1948) (from Similarly, this (a) making any false grounds these are: syl. pt. Wheeling Bank Court held giving any false information statement or Co., Trust v. Morris Plan Bank & application for a li- in connection with an (1971): “Pro- 183 S.E.2d or reinstatement of a cense or renewal equity injunctions cannot be ceedings in license; (b) violating any provision of the an administra- maintained where there is statute; (c) Secretary’s violating any of the remedy provided by statute which is tive (d) employee having been regulations; proper remedy.” adequate and will furnish involving felony any or crime convicted of opinion in v. Rob Our recent Cowie turpitude moral other crime involv- 64, (1984), erts, 312 35 is 173 W.Va. S.E.2d use, illegal carrying possession or ing the pt. 1 controlling. syl. In thereto we held: dangerous weapon. general ‘The rule is that where an ad suspen- govern the Sections 9.02-9.04 remedy provided by stat ministrative hearing sion/revocation Secre- before regulations having rules and ute or in tary. hearing The is to be conducted law, and effect of relief must the force accordance with the State Administrative sought body, administrative be from the provisions Act’s on contested Procedure remedy exhausted and such must be be cases, W.Va.Code, seq. 29A-5-1 et 1, Syl. pt. courts will act.’ Dau fore the Savings v. Traders Federal & relle I. Upon application of S.S. & the Association, 674, 143 104 Loan W.Va. injunc preliminary court has entered a trial S.E.2d 320 Secretary from preventing tion order 3, hearing Citing syl. pt. ex rel. Arnold v. conducting such State an administrative 411, 15 private Egnor, 166 W.Va. 275 S.E.2d alleged noncompliance (1981); 3, doing syl. pt. rel. v. detective/investigator In so State ex Gooden laws. 202, Bonar, pow 155 W.Va. 183 S.E.2d 697 legitimate the trial court exceeded its (1971); affording extraordinary remedy syl. pt. Wheeling Bank ers instruments; (c) Code, burglar’s making possessing prohibits or 4. W.Va. the is- 30-18-3 [1959] (d) buying receiving property; any person stolen unlaw- who has been or suance of a license to (e) felony, entry building; aiding escape elsewhere of a ful convicted in this State or (f) distributing prison; possessing any following unlawful or misdemeanors or or of drugs; (g) any felony (a) habit-forming illegally using, carrying possess- narcotic or offenses: ing (b) involving turpitude. pistol dangerous weapon; moral offense or other

441 Co., Plan Bank & Trust injury, generally 155 W.Va. rable which is also fatal Morris Id. Capitol (1971); injunctive relief. syl., 183 S.E.2d 692 Gates, Equipment, Inc. v. Business Cowie, su- following language from The (1971); syl. W.Va. 184 S.E.2d 125 pra, particularly relevant: Taylor, ex rel. Burchett v. pt. appellant did the in case Not this (1966), this W.Va. S.E.2d 234 fail to exhaust his administrative reme- Court Cowie recognized in the exhaus- that dies, pursue he failed to even them.... administrative is a well- remedies general in jurisdiction. rule established in key The issue this case is the effect Davis, generally Administrative 4 K. appellant’s pursue failure to ad- 1983). Law Treatise (2d ed. 26:1-26:15 §§ provided ministrative remedies under the Egnor, State ex rel. Arnold v. statutes involved.... (1981), 275 S.E.2d we that exceptions noted are to this “[t]here appellant explanation The offers no for general rule of exhaustion of administra- pursue his his failure administrative juris- such agency tive remedies as lack of He does not remedies. contend that or the the under- constitutionality diction appeal procedures ‘inadequate’ ... were agency lying statute.” of these Neither way. any ap- [citation omitted] exceptions any has been time asserted at attempt pellant’s prohibi- to substitute I. &S.S. here, injunctive tion for to seek relief [or Cowie, prior supra, emphasized the exhaustion of administrative Court This to] reject- him remedies available to must existence of an administrative “[t]he appeal important determining is as ed[.] remedies, appropriateness extraordinary 67-68, 173 W.Va. at 312 S.E.2d at 38-39. prohibition [,] in- such as mandamus [and Woods, (4th Gates 169 F.2d 440 Cir. relief],

junctive is the existence 1948) (from S.D.W.Va.), leading case judicial alternative avenue of relief.” area, the same for reaches conclusion referred, at example, S.E.2d 38. We premature injunctive relief as Cowie did McGrady v. Callaghan, substitutionary prohibition relief: 186-87, (1978), S.E.2d 796-97 is well person The rule settled that a which this Court held mandamus prescribed must first exhaust admin- not lie failure when there was a remedy istrative before he can seek pursue adequate available and administra- relief in the courts.... (an hearing tive remedies administrative courts). appeal Similarly, well as attempted plaintiffs have not even presence of a reme- statutory review “[t]he to avail themselves of these administra- ordinarily in- dy injunctive will render the they tive remedies.... rushed [R]ather terruption of im- process the administrative sought into the [s]tate [c]ourt Ruckelshaus, proper.” Anaconda v.Co. injunction to checkmate the [administra- 1301, (10th Cir.1973). 482 F.2d carrying the tive from out officials] extraordinary therein concluded court that upon by them Act. imposed duties the proceedings usually inappropriate are in procedure such To sanction on their challenge generalized the context of a to the would cut heart out of administrative proceedings ripe for re- administrative “not lead to action and chaos the courts. view,” attempt litigants such as when “to 169 F.2d 442-43. at prelimi- by way threshold obtain review gen injunction, thereby avoiding the ad- In case now nary the before us the requiring ad hearing and the review eral rule the exhaustion of ministrative court statute_” Id. at by applicable. 1305. If remedies is As provided ministrative Woods, supra, Gates v. proceedings not allowed S.S. & I. in essence administrative are course, pre injunction their court for an petitioner to take the will rushed into to Secretary the irrepa- carrying be unable to vent from out usually show imminent the W.Va.Code, taken final action by or court or tribunal has imposed upon him duties investigating proceeding it is seq., specifically, in the matter which et 30-18-1 proceed. I. to deter- hiring practices S.S. & to about whether, light having previ- of its mine 5, Huntington City ex Syl. pt. State rel. felons, in viola- three convicted ously hired 671, Lombardo, 143 S.E.2d v. W.Va. regulations, S.S. & the statute and tion of (1965). detective/investigator license private I.’s Secretary devel- I. and the should S.S. & suspended In addi- be or revoked. should at the administra- op all relevant matters tion, Secretary plans investigate at hearing. tive by hearing provided the administrative other grounds have been individuals with employed by ^[1959] proscribed whether S.S. back- & I. its order entered IV on May injunc- preliminary trial court continued its

Thus, matter is not now it is clear tion, alia, upholding the con- thereby, inter by I., merely moot, alleged be- as S.S. & I. to furnish the ditional refusal S.S. & been the three convicted felons have cause addresses, names, etc., employees of its contrary, & discharged S.S. I. To in this acting guards State. ripe is for administrative devel- the matter such refusal was The condition which facts opment of the as envisioned by the approved made S.S. & I. and trial regulatory legislature enacting that the maintain the court was question. scheme in State ministrative not have tled that exceeds rel. matter ed its 275 S.E.2d Arnold v. legitimate ex rel. Having improperly enjoined the ad its jurisdiction a writ of right] legitimate powers.” hearing, the trial court exceed McCartney Egnor, where the trial court powers. (1981), citing syl. pt. prohibition or, having jurisdiction, “Our v. Nuzum, 161 will lie law is set State [as does 422, ex agree. tion Act exempt from disclosure to the I. contends S.S. & 1 et confidentiality of the information. S.S. & Code, W.Va.Code, 29B-l-4(2) seq., 29B-l-4(4) I. asserts that the information is provisions this State’s Freedom Informa- [hereinafter that the [1977], or both. We dis- information “the State or W.Va. FOIA”]. exempt 29B-1- under (1978), syl. 248 S.E.2d 318 W.Va. provisions disclosure pt. Taylor, ex rel. State Scott Act, Freedom of Information W. State’s Va. Accord, 160 S.E.2d 146 Code, amended, are seq., 29B-1-1 et Dos syl. pt. ex rel. Hamstead construed, liberally exemptions be and the (1984): tert, 173 W.Va. 313 S.E.2d strictly such Act are to construed. “ ‘ prohibition writ of as a matter “The lies W.Va.Code, 29B-1-1 This section [1977]. ex right when inferior court ... provides: ’ ” powers.” (citations legitimate its ceeds philoso- Pursuant fundamental omitted) phy of the constitutional form American That the trial not ruled court has representative government permanency injunction but principle government holds to only preliminary injunction has awarded people, the servant of the and not the preclude granting does Court from them, hereby declared master of it is prohibition the writ of at this time: public policy be State West are, Virginia persons all remedy. is a that unless oth- preventive Prohibition law, expressly provided by enti- seeking by prohibition relief in a erwise One prereq- complete is not tled to full and information re- proper required, case as a right garding government to to his resort to such reme- affairs of and uisite represent acts until court or the official of those who dy, to wait the inferior public employees. and question has determined the them officials tribunal authority, people, delegating or to inferi- The do jurisdiction, its wait until the give public right public not their servants the invasion of in- privacy, unless by convincing terest good people decide for the clear and evidence what requires particular in- good disclosure in know and what is not for them to ...; stance: people remaining know. The insist on they may informed so retain control government they over the instruments (4) agen- Records of law-enforcement end, provi-

have created. To that cies that deal the detection and in- liberally sions of this article shall be con- vestigation and the of crime internal of carrying strued with the out the view records and of such notations law-en- public policy.5 above declaration of agencies forcement are maintained which relating internal in matters use This liberal construction State FOIA law enforcement[.] the concomitant construction and strict exemptions are of thereto fundamental respect With of these to either two ex- importance in deciding any involving case FOIA, emptions to the we write es- construction of this statute. slate,” sentially on a for our re- “clean pertinent W.Va.Code, part: 29B-1-4 ^[1977] provides search does not Court point.6 reveal any precedents categories following exemptions The corresponding provided informa- specifically exempt are disclo- Federal Freedom Information Act sure provisions [hereinafter, under the of this article: “the Federal are 5 FOIA”] (1982) 552(b)(6) (7) [hereinafter, U.S.C. §§ — “exemption “exemption 6” and 7” to the (2) personal a Information of nature Federal FOIA].7 such kept personal, as that in a medical file, or public Virtually similar if the every disclosure state also has other so- thereof “open would constitute an unreasonable called records” laws which are sim- 7. 6. 5. perhaps We have been admonished to make decisions in before Holliday, W.Va. at not While this Court held in that case that the mat as law ignorance; power own popular it is but a exempt more could be made that ter of disclosure of records favor of disclosure. son in a letter ed. included in ^[1977] Under We To privacy; files the disclosure of which would constitute enforcement (7) investigatory (6) personnel available to the clearly 1953): Governors, greatly the same effect as note, however, is this which us, enforcement records if it information, both. these federal production Prologue we observed: "[A] unwarranted invasion of "A than the eloquent aphorism protects knowledge 318 S.E.2d at 52. purposes, Knowledge to W.T. Complete Popular must arm themselves with the and medical files and similar people to a Farce records or the of such records would public’s right material exemptions, Barry, August but Madison 377 Government, gives.” language 318 S.E.2d 50 who interest alleged will forever which are: means of was compiled or a mean to be their should good argument 29B-1-1.” to the extent not to be James Madi- to know.... in Sattler v. matters are tragedy; acquiring (Padover personal properly 29B-1-1 without for law exempt govern weighs (A) or Holliday, 173 pre-1974 Federal While the invasion of "files” labeled parties,” State FOIA expressly disclosure is enforcement to the State Federal thereunder broader eral Code, 29B-l-4(4) injury. (1984), appears at first intelligence investigation, confidential course of a criminal agency conducting physical safety criminal impartial adjudication, nel[.] disclose the and, warranted invasion of mation furnished source, (E) deprive person interfere with enforcement FOIA, procedures, in the case of a record We do FOIA, exemption FOIA, Federal limit disclosure amended in law enforcement to six did the closely FOIA, likely exemption, “law enforcement” disclose identity the law enforcement not, because our FOIA, of law types than however, to cause tracks pre-1974 as we noted in Sattler v. only a lawful privacy exemption (F) blush right investigative techniques does investigation, exemption of situations creates a blanket law personal (C) as did the a confidential enforcement endanger exemption "authorized statute, believe that W.Va. to be a somewhat specified types Federal FOIA. constitute an un- 318 S.E.2d authority national proceedings, the confidential a fair trial or an limit compiled by exempt and does not 7 to the Fed- privacy, unlike the exemption exemption or 6 to the pre-1974 person- private life or in the source entire to the infor- (D) (B) 444 detailed intended to cover generally

ilar to the Federal FOIA. See [was] on an individual which Government records Heppler, A Practical Re- Braverman and applying to that individ- can be identified as Laws, 49 Geo. Open view State Records of Wash.L.Rev. Id., 456 U.S. at ual.’ omitted]” 720 [citation 1961, at 72 L.Ed.2d at 364. 102 S.Ct. privacy the invasion of We will discuss exemptions separate- enforcement disclosure of information and law When respective applies particular discussions are not a individual is ly. These records, analyses sought government antici- the sec intended to be exhaustive exemption prong and more critical of 6 pating all ramifications but are narrow ond analysis play, specifically, into rationale for our comes scope to articulate the public’s “right balancing weighing or nonapplicability exemp- of these decision on right to against to know” the individual’s tions in this case. privacy.

A. INVASION OF PRIVACY interpretation uniformly has re- Judicial holds view that no reason would

At the outset Court flected the agreement confidentiality as to be exist for nondisclosure in the absence of that an public body supplier showing clearly and the of unwarranted inva- tween the may privacy, the Free the documents the information not override sion of whether ‘personnel’ or ‘similar’ Ackerly dom of Information Act. See are filed (D.C.Cir. Congress sought Ley, 420 F.2d 1339-40 n. 3 files.... to construct 1969). require government exemption allow the that would a bal- “[T]o exempt by simple ancing right privacy make documents individual’s confidentiality promising against preservation pur- means of would of the basic pose subvert FOIA’s disclosure mandate.” of the Freedom of Information Act light Washington open agency Post v. United States De- ‘to action to the Co. Services, scrutiny.' adopted partment public Health & Human The device (D.C.Cir.1982). Accord- the limited ex- 690 F.2d 263 achieve that balance was threatened, ingly, agreement emption, privacy the form on confidentiali- where was ty prepared by ‘clearly counsel for S.S. & I. and unwarranted’ invasions of incorporated personal privacy. reference into the trial requiring disclosure of the court’s order Rose, Department Air Force v. 425 U.S. names, addresses, security guards’ etc. to 352, 371-72, 96 S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d the extent it con- is void to (1976) [hereinafter, Similar Rose]. flicts with the State FOIA. 29B-1-4(2) [1977], ly, under individuals from the ment that can result from the ington Post S.Ct. mary purpose of W.Va. [hereinafter, disclosure of ed to the Federal States is the same. The threshold Department primary purpose personal Washington Post]. Co., 72 L.Ed.2d FOIA injury information.” Unit U.S. Code, 29B-1-4(2) “was to State Wash 595, 599, unnecessary embarrass exemption inquiry protect (1982) pri vasion of 96 S.Ct. at tect right over, nature of the constitute al’s court must Court personal privacy.” against right we to know. repeat, Exemption privacy only ‘clearly balance 1608-09, disclosure United States stated: “More privacy against — exemption, Emphasizing unwarranted’ invasions 48 L.Ed.2d at 33. Id., weigh every such disclosures as 6 does not incidental in U.S. the limited Supreme individu public’s at pro regard expressed type initially as to the sub In this the court information Post, ject upon supra, that the non-inti- exemption Washington to this turns not containing the information mate or nature of the information label of file conclude, person “may under all the “highly nor the “intimate” or be a reason case, id., given al” nature of the 456 circumstances of a information. See 1960-61, 600-02, information not con- U.S. at at 72 release of such S.Ct. “Rather, exemp- ‘clearly unwarranted invasion of L.Ed.2d at 363-64. stitute ‘[t]he

445 7(F) privacy,’ Exemption applies, ...” 456 U.S. at 602-03 defendants must personal produce these 102 at 1962 n. 72 L.Ed.2d at documents.” Id. n. S.Ct.

365 n. 5. Cunningham persuasive is in the instant If the case. disclosure of the identities of Furthermore, the court remarked in police “private” officers does not reveal Rose, supra, legislative history that “[t]he facts, the disclosure of identi- fortiori Exemption is clear that 6 was directed at security guards “pri- ties of does not reveal privacy palpable threats to interests more occupational vate” facts because activi- possibilities.” than mere 425 U.S. at 380 n. security guards ties of involve less risk of 96 at 1608 n. S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d at 32 physical harm. S.S. & I.’s claim that disclo- n. 19. security guards’ sure of their names and principle The latter follows from the ba- endanger addresses to the would sic thrust of the Freedom of Information lives, property guards health or or of Rose, supra, Act. As reviewed the fol- is, record, speculative. their families on this lowing points two salient must be remem- The record indicates that there have been case, any regardless bered FOIA guards no acts of violence toward even exemption is applica- claimed to be though identity guards generally their First, responsible ble. the fullest disclo- though known and even some of the sure, confidentiality, not is the dominant guards temporarily residing have been at objective Second, of the Act. the exclusive job dispute or near the site where labor exemptions from disclosure must be nar- occurring. has been rowly 360-62, construed. 425 at U.S. 96 Similarly, in Ferguson Kelley, 448 at S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d at 21-22. (N.D.Ill.1977), F.Supp. 919 the names of purposes With these fundamental agents exempt F.B.I. were not from disclo mind, precedents we now examine some sure as an unwarranted invasion of their analyzing the invasion privacy exemp- privacy. agent’s “involvement in in tion contexts similar to the vestigative facts activities for the FBI is not a case before us. For a collection of federal ‘private may fact.’ While there be instanc annot., (1973). agent’s cases see 16 A.L.R.Fed. 516 es identity when disclosure of an annot., endanger safety, exemption For collection of state cases see would his 552(b)(7) 26 A.L.R.4th 666 disclosure under will be allowed showing danger.” after a of that In Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of F.Supp. at 923. (N.D.Ohio Investigation, F.Supp. danger, To show that law enforcement 1981), an brought action was under the personnel may merely assert that their compel Federal FOIA disclosure of infor- occupational possibly activities relate to “Many mation held the F.B.I. dangerous conduct. “The Court will not plaintiff individuals about whom the seeks safety assume that the of law enforcement police information are officers. The Court personnel who are involved in such investi- does not believe that denial of informa- gations endangered per Defendant se. concerning police justi- officers can be compelling showing must make a more that exemption [exemption fied under either endanger safety disclosure would 7(C) exemption authorizing withholding personnel.” law enforcement Fiumara v. investigatory of law enforcement records Higgins, F.Supp. when disclosure would constitute an un- (D.N.H.1983). Certainly, security guards, personal priva- warranted invasion of “protection” whose need for is less than _” cy] F.Supp. held at 2. court personnel, that of law enforcement must there would not be an unwarranted showing compelling make an even more police privacy invasion of the be- officers’ danger. “[tjheir cause involvement in law enforce- ‘private ment activities is not a fact’.” Id. Another reason that the names and ad- showing security guards “Absent some that disclosure dresses of the are not ex- and, endanger safety empt privacy exemp- under the invasion of their thus 446 Thus, disclosure “person and records. is not able books such information

tion is that residential ad- rather, is, speaking, individual’s name and al”; practically of an it nature, which result in an unreasonable the release of dress would not “public” in privacy. an unreasonable inva not constitute invasion 5, Washington n. “privacy.” See sion Tribune In Mexico State McNutt v. New Post, may, in its bal supra. “The Court (N.M.Ct. Co., P.2d 804 88 N.M. 538 extent ancing process, consider the denied, 88 N.M. 540 App.1975), cert. is other requested information (1975), involving a not P.2d 248 a case However, availability such wise available. ac act but a tort freedom of information for FOIA disclosure ‘strengthens the case policemen privacy, were tion for invasion of not seri suggesting that disclosure will newspaper recovery against a com denied privacy.’ ously personal invade [citation had, in retaliation for the offi pany which Atom National Association omitted]” information, pub cers’ refusal to furnish Veterans, Director, Nu Inc. v. ic Defense and residential the officers’ names lished F.Supp. 1483, 1487 583 Agency, clear story gun the officers’ in a about addresses (D.C.Cir.1984). organization of an battle with members Community Hood Col Kotulski v. Mt. Subsequent called the Black Berets. (Or.Ct. Or.App. 660 P.2d 1083 lege, 62 anony publication, plaintiffs received very issue. App.1983), addresses threatening violence. phone mous calls sought the dis faculty member Therein publication was not The court held that the all of the names and addresses of closure privacy. so an actionable invasion college. The part-time instructors at the the ad holding the court concluded that college names but not the ad offered the appears many persons dress of most ground on the that release of the dresses records, voting registration public such as information of a latter would constitute rolls, rolls, motor ve property assessment in an personal nature and would result rolls, registration as well as in tele hicle privacy under a unreasonable invasion of Thus, phone directories. the court was of exemption almost state records law home ad opinion that an individual’s W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(2) identical to [1977]. fact, public, private, not a dress is not con publication the claimed the mere thereof does The court in Kotulski held privacy. 88 N.M. at exemption provision inapplicable. It stitute invasion be Accord, as that 538 P.2d at 808. Strutner v. “personal” information defined Co., App.3d normally Dispatch Printing shared with Ohio which would not 129, 133(Ohio Ct.App.1982) 442 N.E.2d strangers. The court then concluded that (since easily such addresses of individuals are address does not fall within one’s definition, many publicly commonly list- ascertainable reference for addresses are records, directories, such as tele telephone printed on obtainable books and ed in tax, merchants, phone voting, directories and and mo provided to as well checks and records, publication tor vehicle mere appearing licenses and other drivers’ not consti routinely person’s address and name does identification that shown to privacy). an strangers. tute tort of invasion 660 P.2d at 1086. not., 84 A.L.R.3d 1159 opinion This Court is of the example involving sup another of a case analysis in is sound and For Kotulski freedom of information act’s inva ports disclosure of the names and address a state W.Va.Code, 29B-l-4(2) privacy exemption, Kwitny see sion of es this case. closure an individual’s name and residential does not normally exempt from dis McGuire, (Sup.Ct.1979), 102 Misc.2d aff'd, 77 A.D.2d 124, 422 N.Y.S.2d “personal” (App.Div.1980), aff'd, they are not or N.Y.S.2d address because 968, 441 424 N.E.2d public in nature in N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d “private” facts but are (1981) applications con normally (pistol license they constitute information applicants addresses of taining names and strangers shared and are ascertain with disclosure; danger exempt from many publicly obtain- are not able reference to applicants obtaining in- from criminals ... that deal detection and investi- gation speculative). of crime” it formation is because was compiled specif- inquiry of an into summarize, light To liberal con- suspected ic violations of the law. [cita- pro- struction of the disclosure State FOIA Rather, tions more accu- omitted] [it is] visions and the strict construction of the rately generat- described as [a] record[] Act, exemptions to such the invasion of pursuant administration, ed to ‘routine privacy exemption apply does not to a list oversight_’ surveillance or of names security guards and addresses of may ... The fact that information ... Secretary furnished to the pursu- of State form basis investigation for further licensing regulation ant to his and of the does not make that an in- [information] guards’ employer, since such information is pursuant vestigatory record created personal facts, public not nature but and an investigation, [emphasis original] since the risk of harm from disclosure is ... The question] information is ... [in speculative. gathered during the course of routine administration and does not become in- B. LAW ENFORCEMENT vestigatory may because it alert the ad- INVESTIGATORY possible ministrator to a violation of law. RECORDS Depart Goldschmidt v. United States I. S.S. & also contends that the list of Agriculture, ment F.Supp. of names, addresses, etc., security of (D.D.C.1983). Accord, Stern Federal guards is a record of a law enforcement Investigation, Bureau 737 F.2d 89- of agency, namely, State, and (D.C.Cir.1984) (distinguishing between kept is to be confidential under the law specifically “investigations” focused exemption enforcement to the State FOIA. purposes general “law enforcement” and “monitoring” by agency). an “Records ... primary purpose The of exemption that deal investiga with the detection and 7 to the Federal FOIA for law enforcement n crime,” meaning tion of within the investigatory prevent pre records was “to W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977], do not in mature investigatory disclosure of materi generated clude pursuant information might als which be used a law enforce oversight, routine administration or but is ment action.” Federal Bureau Investi compiled part limited to information Abramson, gation 621, 102 456 U.S. inquiry specific suspected into violations S.Ct. 72 L.Ed.2d of the law. primary purpose The 29B- whether the information claimed to be ex- gation of crime....” tigatory forcement forcement State FOIA and the Federal FOIA is empt from disclosure under 1-4(4) ... The threshold that deal with the detection and investi- ^[1977] records” exemption purposes” is the same. (2) inquiry “compiled constitutes (federal) (state)8 under both the the law en- or “records for law en- (1) “inves- techniques guage, “internal records and notations ... which are maintained for internal use in FOIA constitute “internal similar to W.Va.Code, 29B-l-4(4) ... which are maintained for internal use matters involving The list in exemption exemption relating confidential procedures.” to the State question to law enforcement[.]” records and notations 7(E) [1977], to the Federal “investigative also does This FOIA lan names, addresses, enforcement,” The list of relating matters to law with etc., 29B-l-4(4) security guards of the does not meaning consti “investigatory [1977], tute records” or investigative “records refers to confidential 8. On a related been no claim on the record that the list of names, addresses, etc., tary by record," S.S. & I. does not constitute a as defined matter, we note that there has furnished to the Secre- W.Va.Code,29B-l-2(4) "public business, mation decide whether such list is a to include body.” relating prepared, This Court does to the conduct of the "any writing containing owned and retained "public not, therefore, record.” public's infor- exemption Texas, example, has an listing A mere procedures. techniques and legislative addresses, identically to ours.9 The names, num- worded social like, employees clearly limits the bers, history of the statute Texas’ agen- pro- regulation law enforcement company subject exemption to criminal investigative confidential clearly any agency is not a but some cy ceedings by technique procedure. suggested a more ex- have commentators Comment, The Tex- exemption is theory underlying pansive definition. See Section-By-Sec- could Open such information Act: A disclosure of Records agen- investigative 413-14

complicate the task of Analysis, Hous.L.Rev. potential violators of (1977). Again, cies because leave to anoth- n. 131 we & with the familiarize themselves scope law could day question of the er Jaffe forcement case to decide agencies, we deem ally F.Supp. of this 1-4(4) programs, Having confidential details policies which uals or methods and frustrate not [citation annot., v. Central encompass, ^[1977] case, concluded procedures omitted] proceedings of administrative is not even [citation whether this A.L.R.3d 19 Intelligence (D.D.C.1983). govern law enforcement however, ordinary man- if ... it applicable to the facts that Va. it of law enforcement unless unnecessary The omitted] applies W. exemption investigations, exemption (1978). they Agency, 573 Code, 29B- to civil en include in this gener- does ap tial tions but was thereunder, and does not reveal confiden- tine administration of ployer, since such information emption does not et of an to the and addresses of term the licensing [1977]. To seq. investigative meaning summarize, inquiry “law-enforcement Secretary and the and regulation into generated pursuant techniques security guards furnished regulations the law enforcement apply to a list of names specific suspected W.Va.Code, State W.Va.Code, 30-18-1 agencies” within pursuant or promulgated was not guards’ em- procedures. 29B-l-4(4) to rou- to his viola- part ex- plies to records of “law-enforcement the enforcement of both civil federal laws.” Stern v. tory agencies’ proceedings enforcing criminal laws. exemption 7 to the Federal FOIA “includes cies” defined to mean 1984). It Code, 29B-1-4(4) Investigation, not so clear whether W.Va. 737 F.2d ^[1977] only Federal Bureau includes It is those and criminal clear that to invoke (D.C.Cir. agencies regula agen the petition to this provided by to the tory attorney fees, including quently submitted In his memorandum of law filed with Secretary party prevailing in this Court. W.Va.Code, 59-2-14(b) fee of seeks Court, well as in a but not “motion” filed with V thirty recovery as limited to the statu- dollars attorney ($30.00) subse- ^[1960] us, his Secretary authority for such sanctions, The cites as suspension or revo civil such as Code, and recovery 53-5-9 by agency, the cation of a license issued [1931]10 W.Va.Code, 59-2-18 Included The state penal and not to enforce laws. [1931].11 9. 10. trial court nent (Vernon Supp.1985). junction judge awarding may Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. An bond be or sustained or W.Va.Code, its pay judge decree, with such condition as such court part: injunction injunction injunctive ... be not to given required may prescribe. such 53-5-9 in such ... shall not take effect until order dated damages it dissolved, S.S. proceedings ^[1931] person enjoined, penalty & I. to direct, as shall be incurred 6252-17a, provides, May ... post as the court or with condition on a or, a bond in judgment if the in- § in in case 3(a)(8) perti- 11. junctive sury_" or decree on behalf of reversed." neys nent shall such fees ... as a limit on lawful the amount of event it part: be taxed and other claims the order] is determined on "In a case wherein S.S. the State’s in 59-2-18 [1931] were & I. officers for $2,500.00 the costs ... [Secretary] may emphasizes [trial court] payable recovery. appeal services, provides, there is out of the trea- the last clause is modified or fees that the [in- have costs, judgment ..., in in attor- perti- there as if "any the is, attorney therefore, his motion for fees is applicable the State expended prevailing party and itemization of time services Court.

per ty, vailing quarter-hour increments. spectively, in $8,112.50. retary. The itemization is for a total of General West hour for matter rates of of this State Virginia. It is based law partners $90.00 firms in Office of the representing per upon allegedly pre- time hour and Kanawha Coun- associates, billed Attorney the Sec- $70.00 is in re- party may on dismissing “In With one statutory statutory the decree proceeding. of the costs or as recover exception amount as fee) dissolving bill, cannot be recovered as a attorney’s attorney discussed Secretary’s ^[1931] part damages injunction fees fees misplaced: below, reliance “costs” (except beyond to the no to counsel’s provided by purported “fee-stacking” (billing for more than one its lenges ences between that no amount calculating orders, have decision should be recoverable Courts S.S. & I. own relief sought a chilling in several when order; to this state.” attorney’s pursue resists the alleged drafting W.Va.Code, 59-2-14(b) the to the attorneys attorney effect Court respects his such excess of the alleged practice legal time S.S. & motion. apparently because fees. on the same remedies in the the during I. also It manner It affording proposed points litigant’s $30 drafted asserts “would confer- of the ease); chal- fee to the wrongfully injunction bond.” phrey Manufacturing (1959): This Court party prevailing. element of pt. ance of curred fees in such kins, Coal We more the injunction dissolution Co., State ex by reasonable “Reasonable the echoed the same damages issued, cases are recoverable recently party enjoined of an rel. bond.” attorney are recoverable as an Reasonable in an action Shatzer v. injunction 115 S.E. discussed attorneys Co. v. Syl. pt. 107 fees holding in procuring City S.E.2d which was the attorneys’ as Freeport fees, part Hum allow- a suit 503 syl. El in extraordinary proceedings the costs of in legal community to bill in one-tenth-hour case of Virginia the Nelson v. West Public increments; payment the attorney to Board, Employees Insurance W.Va. fees the under Legal State the Public (1982), S.E.2d in which this per article at the $25.00 Services rate of attorney Court awarded reasonable fees in per hour for in-court work and hour $20.00 proceeding against a mandamus a for out-of-court work.12 which, agency admittedly, willfully failed We hold that the not entitled obey a clear statute. In Nelson we recover attorney reasonable fees. recognized general that a rule awards “[a]s 23(b)13 Va.R.App.P. expressly pre- W. attorney of costs and fees are not recovera- cludes an of costs for benefit of award the in provision ble the absence of a for their State in agency the or an or officer thereof allowance a statute or court rule.” 171 Code, case before this Court. 59- W.Va. at 91. W.Va. S.E.2d at After 2-14(b) [1960], providing noting for the inclusion that the mandamus statute autho- in costs to prevailing party grant rizes a court such writ with or $30, “costs,” statutory attorney Court fee of we without mentioned tradi- 14.W.Va.Code, 29-21-14(b)(l)-(2) [1981], [1933], applicable 12. Item- 53-1-8 to both quarter- is to ization thereunder the nearest prohibition proceedings, mandamus and autho- hour. types rizes an award of either of these of writs judge may with or without costs as the court or 23(b) language Va.R.App.P. W. reads as 13. 23(b), however, Va.R.App.P. determine. W. dis- involving follows: “In cases the State of West supra, precludes cussed in the text award of thereof, Virginia agency or an or officer if an costs to the State in this Court. This Court’s against award of costs the State is authorized rule, procedural to the extent conflicts with it law, costs shall be awarded in accordance with statute, procedural supersedes the statute. otherwise, (a); provisions of subdivision Code, 1(a); W.Va.R.App.P. 51-1-4 against shall awarded costs not be for or [1935]; & Co. Perlick v. Lakeview Creditor’s State.” dur- not or diminished reasonable shall be increased this Court that holding of

tional terms, they shall ing their official ordinarily are not recoverable attorney fees any receive to their own use ... at 300 S.E.2d “costs.” 171 W.Va. as costs, of office or other perquisites fees, concluded, however, that an at 91-92. We may compensation, all applica- general rule was exception to the fees law, any payable hereafter be ble, reason- specifically, the allowance of any provid- performed by service fees, express statu- attorney without able officer Constitution, for in ed this article authorization, costs of tory of the paid be advance into the state shall losing party has proceeding, when the added) treasury, (emphasis faith, wantonly, vexatiously, acted bad oppressive reasons. 471 W.Va. at of this This section the Constitution appear amended, S.E.2d at 92. It does not effective November State was applicable to the facts date exception to read Prior to that as above. read, fol- pertinent part, case. of this this section re- attorney general lows: [shall “[T]he case, though, we not have In this annum; per thirteen hundred dollars ceive] exception in to the “bad faith” to look allowance, emolument or and no additional attorney fees that reasonable order hold provided, shall except as herein otherwise liti- by prevailing private are recoverable treasury paid or made out of [1931], gant. Under any foregoing executive by a they clearly would be recoverable (emphasis add- account.” officers private litigant. ed)16 arises, though, question Thus, re- of this State Constitution whether, litigant, prevailing private like a Attorney compensation stricts agency or thereof the or an officer State and of the other named executive General [1931], re may, under 53-5-9 department salary officers to a strict basis damages attorney reasonable fees as cover supplementing the from and bars officers dissolved, injunction incurred to have increasing legislatively provided their rep agency or was when the officer State compensation by receipt of fees or their Attorney by resented the Office of the any compensation. other form that the General this State. We hold rel. v. ex Barrett Boeckler Lumber State may recover. State not so 204, 453, Co., 187, Mo. 455 302 257 S.W. (1924). attorney general compensation The of an ap- in with is to determined accordance fees, prohibiting receipt While provi- plicable statutory and constitutional officers, etc., the use of executive Attorney 6.a. sions. 7A C.J.S. General § General, including Attorney W.Va. 4 (1980); Const, Attorney 7 General Am.Jur.2d § VII, expressly art. 19 authorizes § Const, (1980). VII, pro- art. 19 W.Va. § receipt treasury the State of all into

vides, pertinent part: in payable per by fees law service by “[P]ayable by The named this article formed such officers. officers [the VII, statutory or Attorney is in art. law” refers to constitutional named General Browning, Manchin for their services authorization. See shall receive § 1] law,15 909, 296 915 salary which 170 W.Va. S.E.2d be established Committee, treasury. Compare rel. Barrett the State State ex Trustee 171 W.Va. 206-07, Co., Boeckler Lumber Mo. S.E.2d (1924) (prohibiting supple S.W. losing party; receipt Attorney mentation of fees from salary 15. annual of the current [1984], $50,400. W.Va.Code, language present same constitutional General is 6-7-2 Const, VII, 19), Com § W.Va. art. with Thon v. monwealth, (1883) (statute restrict prior 77 Va. 289 16. One difference obvious between Const, Attorney salary ing remuneration to present General’s art. and the versions W.Va. VII, only compensation” prohibits supplemen without "further refers 19 that the latter § payable treasury regardless not to salaries out of tation of officers’ salaries costs). supplementation is fees taxed in whether the source (1982); Code, 2-2-10(t) BROTHERTON, Justice, dissenting: W.Va. [1973]. firmatively joined reasonable have a ment torney fees are not recoverable unless af- constitutional avoid the well other than the State statute, prohibit regardless Attorney has not been injunction dissolved. There is no has when supplementing their salaries from sources ment of the attorney Const, Finally, to allow the State to recover represented injunction salaries (discussed above) the State to recover authorizes the art. “chilling and such is assistant fees17 into the State General would have been of this attorney statutory VII, Attorney authorized “damaged” by being enjoined. established rights bond. The agency has succeeded effect” § damages attorneys general litigation. 19 does not fees lacking authorization for regular person previously General’s reasonable treasury18 or officer that reasonable at- apply case State, however, in an action on court rule or here. staff of in having That W.Va. law ordinarily expressly which he of names and addresses does not treasury person’s require- govern- paid pay- en- that the names should be A that the requested tion that action. the release of the names and general public. tion Act fect. No one filed a Freedom of Informa- even executed a consent order to that ef- dissenting leased the list of names on its own motion. (1978) (Neely, controversies. cept addresses of the guards sent to that None of the Despite I concur universal maxim of law this been before the Court on names, action of the Court to the judiciary request part it the fact that no one 367, 396-97, action, might this Court part.); general public. J. See, parties for this information. concurring security guards acts fact, have been the not that had the e.g., majority’s upholds 253 S.E.2d before this Court all Teller v. precipitously releasing kept parties on cases and Const, I must dis- proper opinion sealed and country requested May McCoy, the list agreed proper to the art. 8 ques- mo- ex- re- grievances19 ment for redress of and to 3. A court should not fashion relief on § open have the courts of this State to him.20 its own motion on matters before the I, therefore, court. must dissent to this In summary, Secretary may not re- action. attorney incurred, cover reasonable fees either as “damages.” “costs” or as

VI above,

For the reasons set forth we

grant prohibition the writ of as moulded. granted

Writ as moulded. 17.W. Attorney But see n. proceeding pay person being investigated outside this State to under his administration of the West type nominal no Consumer Credit and Protection sion in which the 46A-7-104(2) [1974], W.Va.Code, opinion Attorney the reasonable and of statute is not before us and we Va.Code, statutory attorney General in which he on the Attorney General or his supra. 5-3-5 may, validity We also General's in certain appeared necessary expenses representative. fee, thereof. provides note, in the costs of a fee, circumstances, Act, for the State. for require example, Virginia express is, inclu- This 20. W.Va. 18. Under W.Va. 19. W.Va. Nagy Oakley, vices.” torneys State appropriated by the State (1981). Webb general may treasury Fury, Const, Const, "within the limits of the amounts Code, art. art. for services legislature W.Va. receive III, Ill, § § compensation [1961], 17. See 16. See performed 309 S.E.2d 68 personal assistant at- S.E.2d generally generally for the ser- The notes the of 1. Court that overlap inextricably proceeding prohibition proceedings inter- have been and are this question the of West connected on the of disclosure of to commence the same "State security guards. Virginia ex Goodwin names and addresses of the ex rel...See rel. second, 161, 166, Cook, admittedly trial S.E.2d The challenged court’s order in the (1978) (a enjoining holding exceeding jurisdic- proceeding, its the tribunal 604-05 hearing, necessarily contempt sovereign, peo- the of the administrative tion acts in of the State). question presents ple on the record the of disclo- of the sure to the of the names and addresses of below, proceedings the 2. two and Secretary’s There were security guards, as the the inasmuch records, including us record before contains the point position record on the on that is adverse transcripts, proceedings. both orders and position & on to S.S. I’s the record on the same. prohibitory proceeding and was for Moulding first the writ the circumstances of under Secretary's injunctive to relief. It related the guidance question provide case the of position the list but unmistakable that informal security guards’ disclosure of the names and names, addresses, etc., employees’ S. I’s S. & public, merely to the addresses to the and were, Secretary, for if furnished available Secretary, Secretary’s appropriate due to public inspection request, Free- under the existing ruling question on the and the desirabil- (W.Va.Code, et dom Act 29B-1-1 of Information ity judicial economy important public on an proceeding, resumption seq.). jurisdiction. The second impression issue of first first, injunctive Black, 133, 142, relief. related to was It Hinkle Secretary’s scheduling administrative S.E.2d 748 n. 5 alleged noncompliance hearing & on S.S. I’s laws, private detective/investigator regulations were made with certain 3.These administrative part including supply record before us. the failure to the names least three convicted felons in gues violation of entering the trial court in its licensing private statute on detec- injunctive jurisdiction orders exceeded its investigators. tives and grounds on the that S.S. & I. failed to remedies, exhaust its administrative failed April On S.S. & I. filed with the prove harm, irreparable and failed to petition prohibitory trial court a prove inadequacy legal of available injunctive issuing relief. After a rule to agree remedies. We with these conten- conducting show cause and after an eviden- tions. tiary hearing, April the trial court on order, entered an objection over the Secretary, compelling S.S. & I. to Ill names, Secretary furnish to the ad- provides

Notes

[1959] dresses, etc., security guards but, as Secretary has authority promul- “protective provision,” requiring the Sec- gate and enforce such regula- rules and retary to confidentiality maintain the necessary tions as he deems for the admin- such by having information persons those istration and enforcement of the article on inspect names, etc., authorized to regulation private detectives and investi- background investigations to exe- (W. gators Va.Code, 30-18-1 seq.), et includ- “agreement” cute a form on the confiden- ing regulations issuance, suspension on the tiality of such compliance information. and revocation of licenses issued under order, with this I. S.S. & submitted the list such article. This section of the statute employees addresses, and their etc. provides also hearing for an administrative employees three named of S.S. & I. prior suspending revoking a license. suspected by who were Secretary The action of the suspending

Case Details

Case Name: Hechler v. Casey

Court Name: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 8, 1985

Citation: 333 S.E.2d 799

Docket Number: 16700

Court Abbreviation: W. Va.