Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-CI-1493 RODNEY REVERE v. PATRICK CANULETTE, SHERIFF On Writ of Certiorari to the Twenty-second Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany PER CURIAM:* Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. The court of appeal erred in finding R.S. The

44:31.1, see 1995 La. Acts 653, merely procedural in nature. statute changes the fundamental right of access to public

records, and so qualifies as a substantive enactment susceptible to prospective application only. La.C.C. art. 6; R.S. 1:2;

Sudwischer v. Estate of Hauffpauir, 97-0785, p. 8-9 (La. 12/12/97), 705 So.2d 724, 728-29. In addition, it appears that

the court of appeal has assumed that police photographs and radio logs could not support an application for post-conviction relief properly setting out claims cognizable under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. However, because such documents might support such an

application, cf. State ex rel. Leonard v. State, 96-1889 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325, the case is remanded to the district court to consider whether, given that only a specific and unequivocal law can limit the fundamental right of access to public records, see, e.g., Capital City Press v. Metro. Council, 96-1979, p. 4-5 (La. 7/1/97), 696 So.2d 562, 564, relator still has the right of access to the records sought under the new statute. If the district court finds relator is entitled to

access, it shall order relator supplied with copies or cost estimates in accord with the principles set out in State ex rel. Bernard v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174,

*

Kimball, J., not on panel.

See La.S.Ct. Rule IV, Part II,

Download 98-CI-1493 RODNEY REVERE v. PATRICK J. CANULETTE, ET AL.pdf

Louisiana Law