DNE
(See PDF for image) STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Raymond P. Taffora
Deputy Attorney General
114 East, State Capitol
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
608/266-1221
TTY 1-800-947-3529
November 16, 2009 OAG—7—09
Mr. Thomas B. Eagon
District Attorney
Portage County
1516 Church Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481-3598
Dear Mr. Eagon:
¶ 1.
You have requested my opinion on several questions arising from the Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) prohibition against disclosure of certain records and investigative information related to possible violations of state elections, lobbying, and ethics laws.QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND BRIEF ANSWERS
1. Are these prohibitions limited to information regarding matters referred to a prosecutor or law enforcement from the Government Accountability Board?
2. Is information obtained pursuant to an independent investigation or prosecution by a prosecutor or law enforcement officer subject to this statute?
¶ 2.
Your first two questions appear to assume that the prohibition against disclosure in Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) applies to district attorneys and law enforcement agencies. Having assumed that the statute applies to those authorities, you ask whether it makes any difference to the application of the law whether the records and information are generated following a referral from the Government Accountability Board (“GAB”) or as part of an independent investigation or prosecution. However, as will be explained in detail below, I have concluded that Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) does not apply to district attorneys or law enforcement agencies, but only to the GAB, its employees and agents, and to the investigators and prosecutors retained by the GAB, and the assistants to those persons. 3. When and under what circumstances are district attorney or law enforcement records regarding investigations or prosecutions into the enumerated offenses subject to disclosure under the public records law?
¶ 3.
By “enumerated offenses” I assume you are referring to the offenses identified in Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5)(a), that is, offenses under the elections, ethics, and lobbying laws and “any other law specified in s. 978.05(1) or (2).” In my opinion, Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) does not apply to district attorneys or law enforcement agencies, and therefore Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) does not alter standard application of the Wisconsin public records law to district attorney and law enforcement records regarding investigations or prosecutions under the enumerated offenses. 4. If a district attorney concludes that no prosecution is warranted because there is either no probable cause or the case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or declines to issue charges for any other reason, what statements may be made or records disclosed regarding that conclusion by a district attorney or law enforcement official?
¶ 4.
In my opinion, Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) does not affect the statements that may be made or the records disclosed by a district attorney or law enforcement official if a district attorney concludes that no prosecution under the enumerated offenses is warranted due to lack of probable cause or insufficient evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, or declines to issue charges for any other reason. ANALYSIS
I. RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
¶ 5.
Your questions require interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) and related statutes. The purpose of statutory interpretation “is to determine what a statute means in order to give the statute its full, proper, and intended effect.” Orion Flight Services v. Basler Flight Service, 2006 WI 51, ¶ 16, 290 Wis. 2d 421, 714 N.W.2d 130. All statutory interpretation begins with the text of the statute; if the meaning of the statute is plain, the inquiry ordinarily stops there. Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89, ¶ 15, 312 Wis. 2d 1, 754 N.W.2d 439. Statutory language is generally given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning. Town of Madison v. County of Dane, 2008 WI 83, ¶ 17, 311 Wis. 2d 402, 752 N.W.2d 260 (citing State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110). “[M]eaning should be given to every word, clause and sentence in the statute, and a construction which would make part of the statute superfluous should be avoided wherever possible.” Hutson v. State Pers. Comm’n, 2003 WI 97, ¶ 49, 263 Wis. 2d 612, 665 N.W.2d 212. Further, “[s]tatutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.” Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 46.¶ 6.
I am also guided by recognized canons of statutory construction. The statutes in question limit the public’s access to records. As a statutory exemption to the public records law, Wis. Stat. § 12.13(5) must be narrowly construed. Chvala v. Bubolz, 204 Wis. 2d 82, 88, 552 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1996) (“When it is not clear whether an exception to the open records law exists, we are to construe exceptions to the open records law narrowly.”). The public records law serves a basic tenet of our democratic system by providing opportunity for oversight of government. Nichols v. Bennett, 199 Wis. 2d 268, 273, 544 N.W.2d 428 (1996). People must be informed about the workings of their government and “openness in government is essential to maintain the strength of our democratic society.” Linzmeyer v. Forcey, 2002 WI 84, ¶ 15, 254 Wis. 2d 306, 646 N.W.2d 811. It is “the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them.” Wis. Stat. § 19.31. The public records law therefore must be construed “in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business.” Id. Denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest. Id. This is one of the strongest legislative policy declarations found anywhere in the Wisconsin Statutes. Zellner v. Cedarburg Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 53, ¶ 49, 300 Wis. 2d 290, 731 N.W.2d 240.II.
APPLICABILITY OF THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN WIS. STAT. § 12.13(5).¶ 7.
Wisconsin Stat. § 12.13(5) provides:(a)
Except as specifically authorized by law and except as provided in par. (b), no investigator, prosecutor, employee of an investigator or prosecutor, or member or employee of the board may disclose information related to an investigation or prosecution under chs. 5 to 12 [the “elections law”], subch. III of ch. 13 [the “lobby law”], or subch. III of ch. 19 [the “ethics law”] or any other law specified in s. 978.05(1) or (2) [collectively, the “enumerated offenses”] or provide access to any record of the investigator, prosecutor, or the board that is not subject to access under s. 5.05(5s) to any person other than an employee or agent of the prosecutor or investigator or a member, employee, or agent of the board prior to presentation of the information or record in a court of law. (b) This subsection does not apply to any of the following communications made by an investigator, prosecutor, employee of an investigator or prosecutor, or member or employee of the board:
1. Communications made in the normal course of an investigation or prosecution.
2. Communications with a local, state, or federal law enforcement or prosecutorial authority.
