88-KK-1377 Precedential Processed

State v. Gotro

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 14, 1988 · 532 So. 2d 102

Also decided on this docket: La., November 18, 1988 533 So. 2d 6

Cited by

Harrison v. Norris 569 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Davis 568 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Campbell 566 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Hunter 563 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Gotro 533 So. 2d 6 La. 1988
State v. Johnson 533 So. 2d 6 La. 1988
State v. Clarkson 532 So. 2d 140 La. 1988
State v. Gaines 532 So. 2d 103 La. 1988
State v. Raney 532 So. 2d 104 La. 1988

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Barrett 362 So. 2d 547
State v. Raggio 508 So. 2d 59
State v. McEwen 504 So. 2d 817
State v. Shropshire 471 So. 2d 707

Opinion text

532 So.2d 102 (1988) STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph GOTRO. No. 88-KK-1377. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 14, 1988. Rehearings Denied November 18, 1988. Granted. These cases, consolidated for purposes of review, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings. If the state has disclosed the names of the undercover officers in response to other motions for discovery, documents revealing the same information shall not be withheld on grounds that "[r]ecords containing the identity of an undercover police officer or records which would tend to reveal the identity of an undercover police officer," are not subject to disclosure as public records. La.R.S. 44:3 A(5). Once the identity of the undercover officer has been revealed, the privilege of withholding that information no longer serves its underlying purpose. Cf., State v. Dick, 362 So.2d 547, 550 (La.1978). Accordingly, if there are initial reports by the investigating officers whose identity has now been revealed, the court shall order the state to provide those reports to the defendants. State v. Raggio, 508 So.2d 59 (La.1987); State v. McEwen, 504 So.2d 817 (La.1987); State v. Shropshire, 471 So.2d 707 (La.1985). LEMMON, J., dissents and assigns reasons. LEMMON, Justice, dissenting. La.R.S. 44:3 A(4) provides that "the records of the arrest of a person" are an exception to the general rule of disclosure of public records. Excluded from this exception is the initial report of the officer investigating a complaint. The purpose of this exclusion is to make public the information obtained by the officer immediately following the complaint or discovery of a criminal act. Viewed in the light of that purpose, the legislative intent of the exclusion is not applicable to an undercover narcotics investigation of an ongoing series of related criminal acts. Therefore, the exclusion is inapplicable, and the exception of arrest records from the general rule of disclosure governs.