{"id":1088,"title":{"rendered":"#Not in My Backyard, Granny: The Discoverability of a Public Official\u2019s Private Electronic Messaging Activity in Land Use Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\nKasey A. Feltner1<\/a><\/span><\/sup> For example, in 2015, in Nissen v. Pierce County<\/i>, the Washington Supreme Court found private text messages of government employees were subject to Washington\u2019s open access law for public records, and that public officials do not enjoy a constitutional right of privacy in such records.64<\/a><\/span>64<\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863, 880\u201381, 882<\/a> (Wash. 2015).<\/span><\/sup> The court derived this rule from the Supreme Court of the United States\u2019 1977 decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services<\/i> in which the Court held that:\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\npublic officials, including the President, are not wholly without constitutionally protected privacy rights in matters of personal life unrelated to any acts done by them in their public capacity.65<\/a><\/span>65<\/span>Nixon v. Administrator of General Services<\/i>, 433 U.S. 425<\/a> (1977).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Subsequently, in San Jose<\/i>, the California Supreme Court held that:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nWe agree with Washington\u2019s high court that this procedure, when followed in good faith, strikes an appropriate balance, allowing a public agency to fulfill its responsibility to search for and disclose public records without unnecessarily treading on the constitutional rights of its employees.<\/q>66<\/a><\/span>66<\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 860<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Washington is not alone in applying the Supreme Court\u2019s precedent from Nixon<\/i> to electronic communications of government employees. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Idaho found in Cowles Publishing Company v. Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners<\/i> that seemingly private electronic communications between a government employee and her supervisor were public records, and as such, the government employees had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them.<\/q> The court in Cowles<\/i> noted the federal Constitution protects an individual\u2019s zone of privacy, include[ing] an individual\u2019s interest in having certain personal matters remain private.<\/q> However, private messages deemed public records are not personal matters, and, thus, are not afforded such protections under the First Amendment.67<\/a><\/span>67<\/span>Cowles Publishing Company v. Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners<\/i>, 159 P.3d 896, 902<\/a> (Idaho 2007); compare State v. City of Clearwater<\/i>, 863 So. 2d 149, 155<\/a> (Fla. 2003).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Therefore, as noted above in the previous Parts of this Article, both courts and legislatures are slowly beginning to view private electronic messages of government officials as public records, thereby subjecting those private messages to open access laws. Nowhere is this trend of open access to private electronic communications more applicable than to the private electronic communications of public officials concerning land use regulation. Accordingly, legislatures from each state should begin implementing various laws, regulations, and policies allowing the public to access these private communications without abuse of such access.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>V. Moving Forward\r\n<\/h2>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Providing the public access to private electronic messages created by public officials is imperative because, as the court in Nissen<\/i> stated, electronic messages through private devices:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nare fast becoming an indispensable fixture in people\u2019s private and professional lives. ... Yet the ability of public employees to use cell phones to conduct public business by creating and exchanging public records \u2014 text messages, e-mails, or anything else \u2014 is why [a state\u2019s open access law] must offer the public a way to obtain those records.68<\/a><\/span>68<\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863 \u00b6\u00b6 35, 36<\/a> (Wash. 2015). <\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Seemingly, without clear legislation and guidance from courts, we are hindering the people\u2019s mandate to have full access to information concerning the conduct of government on every level.<\/q>69<\/a><\/span>69<\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863 \u00b6 36<\/a> (Wash. 2015). <\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Accordingly, in response to the Nissen<\/i> court\u2019s call to action, there are various methods by which legislatures could require public officials to provide greater access to private electronic communications. One method is for states to adopt a public access law into their constitutions, and expressly provide that the right to privacy is waived for those records.70<\/a><\/span>70<\/span>Fla. Const. art. 1, \u00a7 23.<\/a><\/span><\/sup> Another is for legislatures to codify private electronic communications \u2014 text messages, emails, private social media postings\/messages \u2014 as public records when used for official business by a government employee.71<\/a><\/span>71<\/span>See also H.R. 2455, 79th Leg. (Or. 2017).<\/span><\/sup> But perhaps the most expeditious and unencumbering method to amend open access laws is to adopt local government policies that address and govern the use of private electronic messages by public officials. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAs these new technologies pervade the everyday activities of government officials and citizens alike, new policies (and sometimes laws) must be developed to ensure transparency. The closed doors that might have aided public officials in holding secret meetings in the past have now been replaced by electronic communications.72<\/a><\/span>72<\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863, 879<\/a> (Wash. 2015); see also Sandra F. Chance & Christina M. Locke, Struggling with Sunshine: Analyzing the Impact of Technology On Compliance with Open Government Laws Using Florida As a Case Study<\/cite>, 21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1, 3<\/a> (2011). Despite this shift to adopt procedures, and relative ease in doing so, agencies are reluctant, even those that [i]n a department all about following rules and procedures.<\/q> Mark Binker & Kelly Hinchcliffe, Texts Are Public Records but Access to Them Remains Tricky<\/cite>, AP<\/a> (Mar. 13, 2017).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>By taking these steps, states can retain their commitment to open access and transparent government, all the while ensuring technology advances do not shield public officials from disclosing public records in the form of private electronic communications. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>VI. Conclusion \r\n<\/h2>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>As private electronic messages become more ingrained in our everyday lives, states and the federal government must work diligently to provide open access to documents that could be considered public records. Otherwise, they are likely not only to run afoul of the public\u2019s right to those documents, but also to allow public officials to shield what would otherwise be a public record under the guise of private communications.73<\/a><\/span>73<\/span>Mark Binker & Kelly Hinchcliffe, Texts Are Public Records but Access to Them Remains Tricky<\/cite>, AP<\/a> (Mar. 13, 2017); see Fla. Const. art. 1, \u00a7 24(a)<\/a>; see also Cal. Const. art. 1, \u00a7 3(b)(1)<\/a>.<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Such records can be pivotal factors in determining the outcome of land use litigation where unlawful discrimination is alleged. As technology advances, debates will continue over what constitutes a public record. One thing that will (hopefully) not change is the public\u2019s right to access public records documenting how government decisions are made, thereby ensuring granny<\/q> will always have a place to stay in our communities.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

Footnotes<\/h2>
1<\/a><\/span>B.S., University of West Florida; M.S., National Graduate School; J.D., Stetson University College of Law, 2017. While at Stetson, Mr. Feltner served as a Stetson Law Review<\/cite> Associate, Moot Court Board Chief Justice, and Editor in Chief for the Stetson Journal of Advocacy and the Law<\/cite>. Mr. Feltner is also currently a Lieutenant in the United States Coast Guard Reserve. Mr. Feltner dedicates this Article to his wife, Adrienne, who has been a constant source of knowledge and support, his work colleagues, who have inspired him and pushed him, and to his loving family and friends.<\/div>
2<\/a><\/span>Sandra F. Chance & Christina M. Locke, Struggling with Sunshine: Analyzing the Impact of Technology On Compliance with Open Government Laws Using Florida As a Case Study<\/cite>, 21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1, 3<\/a> (2011).<\/div>
3<\/a><\/span>The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 552<\/a> (2012).<\/div>
4<\/a><\/span>State Sunshine Laws<\/cite><\/a>.<\/div>
5<\/a><\/span>See generally Matthew D. Bunker et al.<\/i>, Access to Government-Held Information in the Computer Age: Applying Legal Doctrine to Emerging Technology<\/cite>, 20 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 543<\/a> (1993).<\/div>
6<\/a><\/span>Sandra F. Chance & Christina M. Locke, Struggling with Sunshine: Analyzing the Impact of Technology On Compliance with Open Government Laws Using Florida As a Case Study<\/cite>, 21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1, 3<\/a> (2011).<\/div>
7<\/a><\/span>See generally Haleigh Jones, Public Officials\u2019 Facebook Likes<\/q>: The Case for Leaving Regulation of Official Likes<\/q> to the Torches and Pitchforks of Constituents<\/cite>, 18 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 263<\/a> (2015); see also Matthew D. Bunker et al.<\/i>, Access to Government-Held Information in the Computer Age: Applying Legal Doctrine to Emerging Technology<\/cite>, 20 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 543<\/a> (1993). <\/div>
8<\/a><\/span>See Fla. Att\u2019y Gen. Op.<\/i> AGO 2009\u201319<\/a> (Apr. 23, 2009).<\/div>
9<\/a><\/span>Haleigh Jones, Public Officials\u2019 Facebook Likes<\/q>: The Case for Leaving Regulation of Official Likes<\/q> to the Torches and Pitchforks of Constituents<\/cite>, 18 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 263, 272\u201374<\/a> (2015).<\/div>
10<\/a><\/span>U.S. Const. amends. I, IV; 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2707<\/a> (2002).<\/div>
11<\/a><\/span>See generally Daniel J. Solove, Access and Aggregation: Public Records, Privacy and the Constitution<\/cite>, 86 Minn. L. Rev. 1137<\/a> <\/span>(2002).<\/div>
12<\/a><\/span>See generally Julie A. Tappendorf, To Tweet or Not to Tweet: Use of Social Networking in Land Use Planning and Regulation<\/cite>, 34(5) Zoning & Planning L. Rep. 1 (2011).<\/a><\/div>
13<\/a><\/span>See generally Julie A. Tappendorf, To Tweet or Not to Tweet: Use of Social Networking in Land Use Planning and Regulation<\/cite>, 34(5) Zoning & Planning L. Rep. 1<\/a> (2011).<\/div>
14<\/a><\/span>Michael Kling, Zoned Out: Assisted-Living Facilities and Zoning<\/cite>, 10 Elder L.J. 187, 200\u2013203<\/a> (2002).<\/div>
15<\/a><\/span>Sandra F. Chance & Christina M. Locke, Struggling with Sunshine: Analyzing the Impact of Technology On Compliance with Open Government Laws Using Florida As a Case Study<\/cite>, 21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1, 3<\/a> (2011).<\/div>
16<\/a><\/span>See generally Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863<\/a> (Wash. 2015).<\/div>
17<\/a><\/span>See generally Carolyn Elefant, The Power<\/q> of Social Media: Legal Issues & Best Practices for Utilities Engaging Social Media<\/cite>, 32 Energy L.J. 1<\/a> (2011).<\/div>
18<\/a><\/span>Joey Senat, Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials\u2019 Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?<\/cite> 19 Comm. L. & Pol'y 293, 296<\/a> (2014) (citing Okl. Att\u2019y Gen. Op.<\/i> 09\u201312<\/a> (2009). <\/div>
19<\/a><\/span>Joey Senat, Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials\u2019 Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?<\/cite> 19 Comm. L. & Pol'y 293\u201397<\/a> (2014). See also Nicole Rodriguez, Investigation: Are Officials Inadvertently Breaking Records Law Online?<\/cite> TCPalm<\/a> (Dec. 16, 2016).<\/div>
20<\/a><\/span>Joey Senat, Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials\u2019 Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?<\/cite> 19 Comm. L. & Pol'y 293\u201397<\/a> (2014), citing Benjamin Niolet & Michael Bieseker, Aide: Easley Wanted E-mail Messages Deleted<\/cite>, McClatchy D.C. Bureau<\/a> (Feb. 4, 2010). See also Nicole Rodriguez, Investigation: Are Officials Inadvertently Breaking Records Law Online?<\/cite> TCPalm<\/a> (Dec. 16, 2016).<\/div>
21<\/a><\/span>Fla. Stat. \u00a7 119.011(12)<\/a> (2016). See also N.C. Stat. \u00a7 132\u20131<\/a> (2016), Neb. Stat. \u00a7 84\u2013712.01<\/a> (2016). <\/div>
22<\/a><\/span>Del. Stat. \u00a710002(l)<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
23<\/a><\/span>Del. Stat. \u00a710002(l)<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
24<\/a><\/span>Del. Stat. \u00a710002(l)(16)<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
25<\/a><\/span>Del. Stat. \u00a710002(l)(19)<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
26<\/a><\/span>Margie Fishman and James Fisher, Why Delaware Government Documents Stay Hidden<\/cite>, Delaware Online<\/a> (Mar. 19, 2016).<\/div>
27<\/a><\/span>Fla. Att\u2019y Gen. Op.<\/i> AGO 2009\u201319<\/a> (Apr. 23, 2009); <\/span>Joey Senat, Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials\u2019 Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?<\/cite>, 19 Comm. L. & Pol'y 293, 303\u2013304<\/a> (2014).<\/div>
28<\/a><\/span>Joey Senat, Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials\u2019 Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?<\/cite> 19 Comm. L. & Pol'y 293, 303--304<\/a> (2014).<\/div>
29<\/a><\/span>Joey Senat, Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials\u2019 Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?<\/cite> 19 Comm. L. & Pol'y 293, 304<\/a> (2014).<\/div>
30<\/a><\/span>Sudhin Thanawala, Court: Officials\u2019 Emails on Private Accounts Are Public<\/cite>, AP<\/a><\/span> (March 3, 2017); City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
31<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 853<\/a> (Cal. 2017), citing Cal. Stat. \u00a7 6252(e)<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
32<\/a><\/span>State v. City of Clearwater<\/i>, 863 So. 2d 149, 155<\/a> (Fla. 2003).<\/div>
33<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 857<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
34<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 857<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
35<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 857<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
36<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 857<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
37<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848<\/a> (Cal. 2017); see also Fla. Att\u2019y Gen. Op.<\/i> AGO 2008\u201307<\/a> (Feb. 26, 2008).<\/div>
38<\/a><\/span>See Ross Rinhart, Friending<\/q> and Following<\/q> the Government: How the Public Forum and Government Speech Doctrines Discourage the Government\u2019s Social Media Presence<\/cite>, 22 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 781, 781\u201382<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
39<\/a><\/span>Tex. Reg. Text, 13 TAC 7.125<\/a> (proposed Aug. 26, 2016).<\/div>
40<\/a><\/span>N.M. Reg. Text, 1.13.4<\/a> (effective Nov. 30, 2015).<\/div>
41<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 853<\/a> (Cal. 2017); Tex. Reg. Text, 13 TAC 7.125<\/a> (proposed Aug. 26, 2016).<\/div>
42<\/a><\/span>Kristine Nelson Fuge, Exclusionary Zoning: Keeping People in Their Wrongful Places Or a Valid Exercise of Local Control?<\/cite> 18 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 148, 150<\/a> (1996).<\/div>
43<\/a><\/span>Wentworth v. Hedson<\/i>, 493 F. Supp. 2d 559<\/a>, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). See generally Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 3601\u20133619<\/a> (2012); Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.<\/i>, 272 U.S. 365<\/a> (1926).<\/div>
44<\/a><\/span>Michael Kling, Zoned Out: Assisted-Living Facilities and Zoning<\/cite>, 10 Elder L.J. 187, 196<\/a> (2002).<\/div>
45<\/a><\/span>Michael Kling, Zoned Out: Assisted-Living Facilities and Zoning<\/cite>, 10 Elder L.J. 187, 200\u2013203<\/a> (2002).<\/div>
46<\/a><\/span>Urban Farms, Inc. v. Borough of Franklin Lakes<\/i>, 431 A.2d 163, 166\u201368<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1981).<\/div>
47<\/a><\/span>See Todd C. Frankel, Disputes Over Senior Housing Reflect Not in My Backyard<\/q> Worries<\/cite>, St. Louis Post-Dispatch<\/a> <\/span>(Aug. 3, 2013); see also James M. Berklan, Scorned Nuns Brew Up a NIMBY Lawsuit<\/cite>, McKnight's<\/a> (Feb. 4, 2016).<\/div>
48<\/a><\/span>Valley Hous. LP v. City of Derby<\/i>, 802 F. Supp. 2d 359, 387\u201388<\/a> (D. Conn. 2011).<\/div>
49<\/a><\/span>See generally Urban Farms, Inc. v. Borough of Franklin Lakes<\/i>, 431 A.2d 163<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1981).<\/div>
50<\/a><\/span>See Valley Hous. LP v. City of Derby<\/i>, 802 F. Supp. 2d 359, 387\u201388<\/a> (D. Conn. 2011).<\/div>
51<\/a><\/span>See Blagden Alley Association v. D.C. Zoning Commission<\/i>, 590 A.2d 139<\/a> (D.C. 1991); Shepherdstown Observer, Inc. v. Maghan<\/i> 700 S.E.2d 805<\/a> (W. Va. 2010).<\/div>
52<\/a><\/span>Lidia Dinkova, Newly Discovered Emails Prompt New Trial in Lake Point\u2019s Lawsuit Against Martin County<\/cite>, TCPalm<\/a> <\/span>(Apr. 29, 2016).<\/div>
53<\/a><\/span>Barbara Clowdus, Commissioner\u2019s Emails Uncovered in Lake Point Case<\/cite>, Martin County Currents<\/a> <\/span>(Mar. 21, 2016).<\/div>
54<\/a><\/span>Barbara Clowdus, Lake Point\u2019s Court Fight Over Public Records Ends ... Almost<\/cite>, Martin County Currents<\/a> (Feb. 24, 2017).<\/div>
55<\/a><\/span>Lidia Dinkova, Newly Discovered Emails Prompt New Trial in Lake Point\u2019s Lawsuit Against Martin County<\/cite>, TCPalm<\/a> (Apr. 29, 2016).<\/div>
56<\/a><\/span>Valley Hous. LP v. City of Derby<\/i>, 802 F. Supp. 2d 359, 387\u201388<\/a> (D. Conn. 2011).<\/div>
57<\/a><\/span>Lidia Dinkova, Newly Discovered Emails Prompt New Trial in Lake Point\u2019s Lawsuit Against Martin County<\/cite>, TCPalm<\/a> (Apr. 29, 2016).<\/div>
58<\/a><\/span>Daniel J. Solove, Access and Aggregation: Public Records, Privacy and the Constitution<\/cite> 86 Minn. L. Rev. 1137, 1201\u201303 (2002)<\/a>. (In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment mandates that certain government proceedings be open to the public.<\/q>), citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia<\/i>, 448 U.S. 555<\/a> (1980); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct.<\/i>, 457 U.S. 596<\/a> (1982); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct.<\/i>, 464 U.S. 501<\/a> (1984) (Press-Enterprise I); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct.<\/i>, 478 U.S. 1<\/a> (1986) (Press-Enterprise II). Additionally, the court in Nissen<\/i> found that the Fourth Amendment to the United States\u2019 Constitution did not shield discovery of public records. Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863, 883<\/a> (Wash. 2015). <\/div>
59<\/a><\/span>See generally City of Ladue v. Gilleo<\/i>, 512 U.S. 43<\/a> (1994).<\/div>
60<\/a><\/span>Morgan Watkins, Text Messages As Public Records: A New Set of Issues<\/cite>, The Gainesville Sun<\/a> (Mar. 10, 2013).<\/div>
61<\/a><\/span>Christopher Cadelago & Ryan Lillis, Government Officials Can\u2019t Use Private Devices to Hide Texts and Emails, Court Rules<\/cite>, The Sacremento Bee<\/a> <\/span>(Mar. 2, 2017).<\/div>
62<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 853<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
63<\/a><\/span>Andrew Greene, Valerie Hughes & Tobias Piering, Work-Related Text Messages on Personal Cell Phones Are Public Records Says WA Supreme Court<\/cite>, JD Supra<\/a> <\/span>(Sept. 2, 2015).<\/span><\/div>
64<\/a><\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863, 880\u201381, 882<\/a> (Wash. 2015).<\/div>
65<\/a><\/span>Nixon v. Administrator of General Services<\/i>, 433 U.S. 425<\/a> (1977).<\/div>
66<\/a><\/span>City of San Jose v. Superior Court<\/i>, 389 P.3d 848, 860<\/a> (Cal. 2017).<\/div>
67<\/a><\/span>Cowles Publishing Company v. Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners<\/i>, 159 P.3d 896, 902<\/a> (Idaho 2007); compare State v. City of Clearwater<\/i>, 863 So. 2d 149, 155<\/a> (Fla. 2003).<\/div>
68<\/a><\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863 \u00b6\u00b6 35, 36<\/a> (Wash. 2015). <\/div>
69<\/a><\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863 \u00b6 36<\/a> (Wash. 2015). <\/div>
70<\/a><\/span>Fla. Const. art. 1, \u00a7 23.<\/a><\/div>
71<\/a><\/span>See also H.R. 2455, 79th Leg. (Or. 2017).<\/div>
72<\/a><\/span>Nissen v. Pierce Cty.<\/i>, 183 Wash. 2d 863, 879<\/a> (Wash. 2015); see also Sandra F. Chance & Christina M. Locke, Struggling with Sunshine: Analyzing the Impact of Technology On Compliance with Open Government Laws Using Florida As a Case Study<\/cite>, 21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1, 3<\/a> (2011). Despite this shift to adopt procedures, and relative ease in doing so, agencies are reluctant, even those that [i]n a department all about following rules and procedures.<\/q> Mark Binker & Kelly Hinchcliffe, Texts Are Public Records but Access to Them Remains Tricky<\/cite>, AP<\/a> (Mar. 13, 2017).<\/div>
73<\/a><\/span>Mark Binker & Kelly Hinchcliffe, Texts Are Public Records but Access to Them Remains Tricky<\/cite>, AP<\/a> (Mar. 13, 2017); see Fla. Const. art. 1, \u00a7 24(a)<\/a>; see also Cal. Const. art. 1, \u00a7 3(b)(1)<\/a>.<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kasey A. Feltner<\/p>\n","protected":false},"meta":{"_citation":"5 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 50 (2018)","_first_para":50,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-21"]}