5D09-208 Rameses v. Demings

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D09-208

Case Date: 03/01/2010

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010

RAMESES, INC., D/B/A CLEO'S, ET AL., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-208

JERRY L. DEMINGS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ETC., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 5, 2010 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, George A. Sprinkel, Judge. Steven G. Mason, of Steven G. Mason, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Eric Dunlap, Assistant General Counsel, Orange County Sheriff's Office, Orlando, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J. Rameses, Inc., d/b/a Cleo's, and attorney Steven G. Mason (collectively "Cleo's") appeal from an adverse summary judgment entered in their action seeking disclosure of several videotapes generated by the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI) as part of a 2004 undercover investigation in Orange County known as "Operation Overexposed." Jerry L. Demings, the Sheriff of Orange County, in his official capacity and as the records custodian of the MBI, declined to release the tapes unless the faces of the undercover officers were obscured. The issue both below and on appeal is a

narrow one. When public records, otherwise exempt from disclosure under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2008), have been disclosed during discovery to a criminal defendant, is the government precluded from asserting applicable statutory exemptions from disclosure in a subsequent public records action? We answer in the negative and affirm. The MBI conducted a criminal investigation at Cleo's, an adult nightclub, during which undercover law enforcement officers posed as patrons. At the completion of the operation, several dancers were arrested and charged with public nudity, exposure of sexual organs and "straddle dancing." Some of the illegal conduct was videotaped and depicted the faces of the undercover officers.1 In the ensuing criminal proceedings, the defendant dancers participated in discovery under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, and received copies of the unredacted tapes.2 The criminal prosecutions against the dancers concluded in 2005, and the related administrative charge against Cleo's was resolved shortly thereafter. After the criminal and administrative litigation ended, Cleo's, represented by Mr. Mason, sought release of the videotapes by submitting a public records request to the Sheriff.3 The Sheriff offered to provide redacted tapes.

Videotape recordings fall within the ambit of chapter 119, Florida Statutes. See

Download 5D09-208 Rameses v. Demings.pdf