 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Revere v. Canulette5/15/1998
interest of maintaining and preserving the integrity of the public records.
Plaintiff has not proven that the state has no appropriate governmental interest. Thus, because the plaintiff has not sustained his burden of proof, we hold that the trial court was correct in determining that La.R.S. 44:31.1, as applied to civil docket number 95-14940-C, is not an unconstitutional violation of Article I, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution.
Article XII, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the denial of a person's right to examine public documents. This prohibition, however, is not absolute and unqualified. This same section provides for exceptions in cases established by law. Louisiana Revised Statute 44:31.1 is one such exception. For an example of another exception, see DeSalvo v. State, 624 So.2d 897 (La. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. DeSalvo v. Louisiana, 510 U.S. 1117, 114 S.Ct. 1067, 127 L.Ed.2d 386 (1994).
Generally, laws are presumed to be constitutional, and where possible, this court should give such laws an interpretation of constitutionality. Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc., 668 So.2d at 1140; Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 95-2319 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/28/96), 676 So.2d 812, 822. As previously stated, Article XII, Section 3 provides for exceptions to the right of access to public records. The purpose of the Public Records Act is to keep the public reasonably informed, while at the same time balancing the public's right of access against the public interest of protecting and preserving the public records against unreasonable dangers of loss or damage, or acts detrimental to the integrity of the public records.
We believe that La.R.S. 44:31.1 gives an inmate the right to examine any public record (and to copy or receive a copy thereof in a reasonable manner) relevant to any post-conviction relief he is entitled to seek. At the same time, the statute strikes a reasonable balance between the inmate's right of access to the public records and the custodian's obligation to effectively and efficiently preserve the integrity of the public records.
United States Constitution
With respect to the United States Constitution, plaintiff first argues that the denial of access to the radio logs under La.R.S. 44:31.1 was a violation of his right of access to the courts.
It is true that prisoners have a constitutional right of adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts to petition the government for redress of grievances. Bounds v Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1495, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). This right, however, apparently does not extend to all legal filings, but applies only to presentation of constitutional claims, such as civil rights complaints and state and federal habeas petitions. Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619, 623 (5th Cir. 1985). The appropriate inquiry is whether La.R.S. 44:31.1 violates plaintiff's right of access to the courts by denying him access to documents or information needed to give him a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of constitutional rights to the courts.
We conclude that the statute does not deny plaintiff the necessary access. The very language of the statute excludes from its application any felony inmate except those seeking copies of public records upon grounds for which the inmate could file for post conviction relief. However, the record demonstrates plaintiff has exhausted his appellate remedies. According to the record, plaintiff has no further need for the requested information with respect to matters for which the right of access is intended. Furthermore, nothing prevents plaintiff from h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|