SHERIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
ANABELLE DIAS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO.: 2008CA-2446
Civil Division: CHARLES A. FRANCIS
CHIEF JUDGE
LARRY CAMPBELL, as SHERIFF
OF LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, ~ ‘~
Respondent.
___________/
SHERIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE r
―
~
The Respondent, Larry Campbell, as Sheriff of Leon County, Florida a/k/a the L~n County
Sheriffs Office (hereinafter referred to as the Sheriff), by and through the undersigned, files this his Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and as grounds therefore states the following:
1. This Honorable Court issued an Order to Show Cause in the above styled cause dated July 28, 2008. The Court ordered the Sheriff to show cause in writing within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of the Order why the Petitioner’s petition for mandamus relief should not be granted.
2. The twenty (20) day time period from July 28, 2008, ends on Sunday, August 17,
2008. Rule 1.090., Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that the last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Therefore, the Sheriff timely files his Response on Monday, August 18, 2008, prior to the end of the day.
3. The Petitioner in her Amended Petition for Alternate Writ in Mandamus alleges that

the Sheriff has failed to provide a response and/or certain documents regarding sev ral ublic records requests made pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
4. In support for her allegations that the Sheriff has failed to provide a response and/or certain documents regarding her public records requests, the Petitioner lists several alleged violations. The Sheriff responds to each alleged violation according to the date of the request:
4.1 The public records request of August 3,2007, was responded to by the Sheriff
on August 10, 2007, on August 15, 2007 and on August 27, 2007 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office
Attachment A, Affidavit of Cassandra Austin, Assistant Supervisor of the Records Section, and see
Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #3, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records
Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.2 The public records request of August 7, 2007, was responded to by the Sheriff
on August 10, 2007, on August 15, 2007 and on August 27, 2007 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office
Attachment A, Affidavit of Cassandra Austin, Assistant Supervisor of the Records Section, and see
Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #3, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records
Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.3 The first public records request of February 20, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on February 20, 2008 and on March 20, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #4, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.4 The second public records request of February 20,2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on March 11, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #5, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.5 The public records request of March 6, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff

on March 10, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #6, Affidavi o He “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records). ______________
4.6 The public records request of March 10,2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #7, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.7 The public records request of March 11, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #8, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.8 The status request of April 2, 2008, had already been responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #9, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.9 The first public records request of April 7, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on April 16, 2008 and on April 18, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #10, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.10 The second public records request of April 7, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on April 10, 2008 and on April 30, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #1 1, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.11 The public records request of April 8, 2008, was not responded to by the Sheriff. According to the Sheriffs Custodian of Records, this request must have been misplaced as an oversight (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #12, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records). The Custodian of Records has pledged to process the request as quickly as possible (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #31.1,
Page3of 14

Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and
4.12 The public records request of April 14,2008, was
on April 16, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #13, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.13 The public records request of April 17, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #14, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.14 The request for an update of April 21, 2008, had already been responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #15, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.15 The status request of April 27, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #16, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.16 The public records request of April 28, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on April28, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #17, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.17 The public records request of May 3, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #18, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.18 The public records request of May 7, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on May 7, 2008, on May 8, 2008, May 9, 2008, and June 9, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #19, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).

4.19 The status request of May 15 2008 had already been re onded to b the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #20, Affidavit of Hen~ciQ~~j Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.20 The request for an update of May 15, 2008, had already been responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #21, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.21 The public records request of May 15, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on June 5, 2008 and on June 6, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #22, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.22 The request of May 27, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #23, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.23 The request of June 4, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #24, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.24 The request of June 10, 2008, had already been responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, #25, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.25 The requests of June 19, 2008 and June 20, 2008, were once again responded to by the Sheriff (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #26, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.26 The Sheriff has no record of ever receiving the request of June 24, 2008 (see
Page 5 of 14

Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #27, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” gers Records Manager and Custodian of Records). The Custodian of Records has pledged to pliocess lie request as quickly as possible (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #31.4, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.27 On June 25, 2008, the Petitioner received an e-mail from the Sheriff advising that a CD containing telephone calls from an inmate were ready for pick up. In item 39 of the Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Alternate Writ in Mandamus, the Petitioner makes reference to the CD containing only phone calls from the inmate to the Petitioner’s office. The Sheriff provided a response on July 29, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #28, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.28 The public records request of July 8, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on July 9, 2008 and on July 25, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #29, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
4.29 The request of July 24, 2008, was responded to by the Sheriff on July24, 2008 (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #30, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
5. The Sheriff is aware of the provisions and requirements of Florida’s Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and he strives to comply with the intent and the letter of the law concerning this very important right of access to public records. The Sheriff processes numerous public records requests each year with no complaints being lodged from any requestor. The Sheriff has appointed a Custodian of Records within the Leon County Sheriffs Office whose duties and responsibilities are to receive and process requests for public records. The Leon County Sheriffs
Page6of 14

Office Custodian of Records and Records Manager, Henry “Rick” Eggers, aFd his Assistant, Cassandra Austin, provided affidavits refuting the allegations made by the Pet4oner.__umerous documents have been provided to the Petitioner in response to the requests that have been made. In situations where the documents could not be provided (they were unavailable, couldn’t be located due to the limited search capability, or because of confidentiality restrictions), these reasons were provided to the Petitioner. The distinction between having no problems with all of the other public records requests processed by the Sheriff throughout the year, and the issues with the requests that are made by the Petitioner, may very well be due to the way the requests are worded, the type of records sought, the manner in which the Petitioner makes the requests, and the continual re­requesting of records that had either been previously provided or had been denied simply because the Sheriff does not have the capability of locating them with the limited infonnation being provided by the Petitioner. Upon a review of the Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Alternate Writ in Mandamus and the Exhibits provided along with it, it becomes readily apparent just how confusing this matter has become due to the multiple requests being submitted on the same day, new requests being included within a request for status report on previously requested records, the voluminous nature of the requests, requests of the Custodian to create a new record or to provide answers to a variety of questions propounded by the Petitioner, requests to provide evidence, and the blending and overlapping of all these different and varying requests.
6. Public records requests made by the Petitioner are confusing because they include more than a request for a public record. They also ask questions the Petitioner desires the Sheriff to answer. For example, the Petitioner asks in Exhibit D, “Did Deputy Rasmussen patrol vehicle on April 13, 2006 have an in camera video?”, and in Exhibit E 3, the Petitioner asks, “How long can
Page7of 14

I go back?”. “How long do you keep the calls?”. The Petitioner asks in Exhibit B 6,1”Does the LCSO cars have text messages or e-mails?”. Not only does the Petitioner seek to use the ~b_ic records aw to have her interrogatories answered, but she also asks the Sheriff to create new records. For example, in Exhibit F 6, the Petitioner asks for “A list of all persons arrested on April 13, 2006 by Sgt Tim Baxter, Deputy Tyson badge number 341, Deputy Steven Bradley, and/or Deputy Rasmussen”. The Petitioner asks the Sheriff to “List the person arrested, the date of the arrest and the time of the arrest, the violation(s) charged with and the location of the arrest.” In Exhibit D of Petitioner’s Writ, the Petitioner asks the Sheriff to create a list containing various names, “I also would like to request the names of all the inmates housed in adult G pod at the time of the tazing incident, as well as the name of all the officers and nurse working from 6 pm to 4 AM.” Even though the custodian of a public record is not required to answer questions (AGO-92-38), nor is he or she required to either provide information from records or to create new records in response to a request (Cf, In re Report ofthe Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records~, 825 So. 2d889, Fla., 2002), it takes a lot oftimeto sift through such public records requests and attempt to determine what is proper.
7. Another confusing aspect of the Petitioner’s requests is the fact that she uses her public records requests to make demands for evidence. For example, in Exhibit F 2, the Petitioner requests the “photos of victim’s injuries” and the “gloves”. In Exhibit F 5, the Petitioner asks for “Evidence photographs, (including residential, vehicular & contraband)”.
8. The Petitioner’s requests are at times overbroad and lack particularity. For example, in Exhibit Al, the Petitioner requests “Any emails within the State Attorney’s office of the Second Judicial Circuit from ..... Rick Courimanche regarding public request made by defense attorneys,
Page 8 of 14

myself and/or my office from January 1, 2006 to present”. The Sheriff doesn’t i]a~Q~~J State Attorney’s e-mail system, nor does the Sheriff have access to the Tallahassee Police Department’s emails (Rick Courtmanche is employed by the Tallahassee Police Department). In addition, it is very unclear which defense attorneys the Petitioner is referring too. In Exhibit B 1, the Petitioner says, “I would like to make a public records request for any emails to and/or from anyone (other than to or from our office) at the Leon County Sheriffs Office and/or the Leon County Jail in regards to the following individuals ....“ and she goes on to list three individuals who are presumed to be inmates. The Petitioner does not provide the name of a specific employee and the Sheriffs system does not have the capability to search by these parameters. In Exhibit C 1, the Petitioner requests, “Any and all emails from 05/15/2006 19:44:55 to present (March 10, 2008), to and/or from any LCSO employees in reference to Inmate Brandon Hepburn”. In the same request, the Petitioner also asks for, “Any and all emails from January 1, 2007 to present in reference Attorney visits from Anabelle Diaz”. The Petitioner provides no specific inmate’s name. In Exhibit D, a request is made as, “I am making a Public Records Request for any and incidents and/or reports referencing a AMT 380 Auto Caliber Semiautomatic Pistol, back up model with serial number B13728 from January 1, 2000 to present (March 26, 2008). Such requests result in the delay of locating the requested record, or not being able to locate it at all. The Sheriffs system does have unlimited search capability. To search for the records, the Sheriff needs to know what the specific record is that the requestor desires.
9. Many of the records that are asked for by the Petitioner are very voluminous, which results in an extra-ordinary amount of time to process. For example, in Exhibit F 5, the Petitioner
Page9of 14

makes the following public records request: coPy1
“Reference: LCSO case 07-251052 _______________
1. Copies of any and all;
a. Incident or Arrest Reports
b. FIRs
c. Supplemental Reports or Attachments
d. Traffic Citations, Tickets or Warnings
e. Probable Cause Affidavits or related documentation
f. Search Warrants
g. Property & Evidence Receipts & Inventories as well as towing &
impoundment records
h. Complainant’s, statements andlor recordings
i. Evidence Photographs, (including residential, vehicular & contraband)
j. Florida Administrative messages(s), emails, announcements, BOLO’ s or
any other unlisted documentation relating to the LCSO case number 07-
251052
3. Any and all Leon County Sheriffs Office CAD records covering LCSO case
number 07-251052
4. Any and all Leon County Sheriffs Office CAD records for November 2, 2007
mentioning: Antonio Cromartie, and or Mike Cash”
In Exhibit F 6, the following request is added:
2. Copies of the complete Personnel Files of the following list of employees, to include;
a) All complaint and disciplinary files,
b) Internal Affairs investigative records, notes, tapes and/or CDs, c) Copies of all Use of Force Reports submitted by each employee listed, d) All employee training records including those pertaining to violent crime investigations, search warrants, vehicular stops & searches, probable cause requirements & issues, witness interviews, arrest procedures, handcuffing procedures, Miranda rights and interrogation of potential victims and/or arrested persons, for the following current or previous employees of the Leon County Sheriffs Office”
Then in Exhibit F 8, the Petitioner asks for a copy of each and every general order and policy
that applies to any employee with the Sheriff’s Office, “Could we get a copy of a CD with all policies, procedures, general orders, code of conduct, and other manuals that apply to any of the LCSO agency or employee.” It would appear the Petitioner is using the public records law as a
Page 10 of 14

means to obtain discovery rather than making a demand for discovery with theJS~~OffpJ Office. The voluminous nature of Petitioner’s requests can be seen in her Exhibi H 4, when in an e-mail she tells the Custodian of Records that she has “reviewed the 28 tapes you provided me”, and in the same e-mail makes an additional request for still more records. The Petitioner in Exhibit I 3, tells the Sheriffs Custodian of Records, “I was provided a lot of records” and “as well as well as a large amount of documents”. The more records that are requested, the longer it takes to process the request.
10. The Sheriff is not challenging the Petitioner’s right to request records pursuant to the public records law. But rather, is simply making an observation that it is extremely difficult to search and keep track of all of the Petitioner’s public records requests when they are presented in the manner that they are requested. Such confusion, and often times calamity, leaves the Petitioner to wonder whether records have been provided, and if so, which ones on what dates.
11. The Petitioner in her Amended Petition for Alternate Writ in Mandamus fails to state with specificity an unlawful refusal by the Sheriff to provide a specific public record. The Petitioner merely provides a general statement alleging the Sheriff has unlawfully withheld public records from Petitioner. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the records even existed or that an exemption did not apply. According the Sheriffs Custodian of Records, he has responded to all of the Petitioner’s prior public records requests with either providing the records, providing an exemption, or with advising the Petitioner that insufficient information had been provided in order to conduct a search within the system’s capabilities. An exception was noted for the four requests that are listed in #31 of his affidavit (see Leon County Sheriffs Office Attachment B, #31, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records). He pledges to process these four requests as
Page 11 of 14

quickly as possible. The Sheriff has submitted sworn evidence refuting the Petitifn ‘s I
(Radfordv. Brock~ 914 So. 2d 1066, Fla., 2dDCA, 2005). The Florida Supreme ~urt he d in Mills v. State, 684 So. 2d 801, Fla., 1996, that there was no abuse of discretion in trial court’s failure to order sheriff’s department (Wakulla County) to produce certain requested records where there was no demonstration that the records existed.
12. The Sheriff respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny the Petitioner’s request that public records be produced to the Petitioner at no cost. There is no precedent for such request and public dollars should not be expended to provide records free of charge. In Petitioner’s Exhibit 14, she informs the Sheriff’s Custodian of Records, “I am not willing nor able to pay for the records Mr. Bleechington would like to inspect at this time”. The Petitioner states, “I would ask that he at least be allowed to listen to all of his phone conversations from the jail.” “I am on my way out of the country and will not be able to assist Mr. Bleechington reviewing any of the records other than to have my staff play it for him in the video booth if you would like to provide us the conversations on a CD.” “However, as you know I have to pay for my staff’s time as well and can not be with Mr. Bleechington 24 hours per day.” In order for an inmate to listen to a recording of telephone conversations or have an attorney’s staff play the tapes for the inmate, a duplicate of the tape would need to be made in order to safeguard the tape from destruction during inspection. Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, does not contain a provision that prohibits an agency from charging inmates the applicable statutory fee (Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d], Fla., 1993). The 2nd DCA has said, “No Merit to inmate’s contention that Ch. 119, F.S., entitles him to free copies of all records generated in his case”, (Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 2dDCA, 2004).
13. The Sheriff respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny the Petitioner’s request
Page 12 of 14

to award Petitioner the costs of this action and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant [0 f
Florida Statutes. Section 119.12, F.S., contemplates the award of attorney’s fee~J and costs o y ifj the court determines that such agency unlawfully refused a public records request. The statutory purpose of awarding attorney’s fees and costs is to encourage voluntary compliance with Florida’s public records law (Office of State Attorney for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida v. Gonzalez, App. 2 Dist., 953 So.2d 759, 2007). As previously stated in #5 above, the Sheriff strives to comply with the intent and the letter of the public records law. This is evidenced by the processing of numerous public records requests each year without any complaints being lodged by the requestor. In Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Authority, MD. Fla. 2007, 510 F.Supp.2d 691, the court held that the individual bringing the suit was not entitled to attorney’s fees with no evidence that the public agency ignored or otherwise failed to respond to the request. The Sheriff in this matter never ignored, refused or otherwise failed to respond to the Petitioner’s public records requests (see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment A, Affidavit of Cassandra Austin, Assistant Supervisor of the Records Section, and see Leon County Sheriff’s Office Attachment B, Affidavit of Henry “Rick” Eggers, Records Manager and Custodian of Records).
14. Because of the confusing nature of all the requests, the Sheriff believes it would be beneficial and therefore proposes to have his Custodian of Records and the Petitioner schedule a time to meet personally and go over all of the requests to ensure that the Petitioner is satisfied with the responses that have been provided thus far. The Sheriff also recommends that during this meeting the parties discuss the manner and method in which future public records requests shall be made in the hopes that subsequent issues may be avoided.
15. Based upon the sworn evidence submitted in this case, the Sheriff asks this Honorable
Page 13 of 14

Court to find that the allegations made against the Sheriff by the Petitioner in her if dj~t4~31 for Alternate Writ in Mandamus, are unfounded.
16. On July31, 2008, the Sheriff received a Notice of Appearance from Marie A. Mattox advising the Sheriff that she was the attorney of record for the Petitioner and further directing all parties to forward to her copies of any and all notices and/or pleadings filed in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Sheriff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny the Petitioner’s request to require the Sheriff to produce public records at no cost to the Petitioner and to award the Petitioner the costs of this matter and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Respectfully Sumtted this l8t~~ day of August, 2008
W. Alan Griner, Legal Counsel
Leon County Sheriff’s Office
Post Office Box 727
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0727
(850) 922-3456
FBN: 0946559
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by United States Mail to Marie A. Mattox, 310 East Bradford Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32303 this 1 8th day of August, 2008.
W. Alan Griner
Page 14 of 14