01-0197 Linzmeyer v. Forcey

Listen to this article

Further, we conclude that the presumption of openness is not overcome by any other public policy favoring non-disclosure, such as plaintiff’s right of privacy.

Even though release of the report might cause plaintiff some personal embarrassment and damage his reputation, that is not sufficient to give rise to a public interest in protecting his reputation.

“This is a police report, which details information surrounding allegations of misconduct by Linzmeyer that occurred at school and in the classroom. Its release will not dissuade qualified persons from applying to be teachers, as the release of their personnel files might. See Vill. of Butler, 163 Wis. 2d at 831.

Similarly, it will not impede the ability of the vast majority of teachers to perform their jobs. If there is any negative effect from the release of the Report, it will be on Linzmeyer as an individual, and not on the public interest.

“To the contrary, a number of the characteristics of this specific case actually undercut the notion that a public interest would be damaged by the release of the Report. First, the allegations against Linzmeyer involved possible inappropriate interactions with his students. The statements in question were made publicly, and many were corroborated by other students, or even admitted by Linzmeyer himself. …

“Additionally, the release of the Report will not impede the public policy of investigating and prosecuting criminal activity. First, there is no way that release could reasonably be expected to interfere with on-going enforcement proceedings. … There is also no threat that techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions would be revealed if the Report is disclosed. The investigation here consisted of a series of interviews – a well known and widely practiced police investigation technique. This was not a sting operation or undercover operation that would require secrecy to protect the identity of particular sources and techniques.

“We caution, however, that this does not mean that all police records are immediately open to complete public disclosure, simply because there is a decision not to charge. We emphasize again that the balancing test must be done on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that the public policies for and against release are assessed.”

Affirmed and remanded to the circuit court for appropriate redaction, if necessary.

Winnebago County, Key, J., Wilcox, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Leonard D. Kachinsky, Neenah

For Respondent: James B. Gunz, Neenah, Kendall W. Harrison, Wisconsin Education Association Council