Can a Florida agency make a public-records requester give a mailing address, show up in person, or explain why they want the records?

Plain-English summary

A Washington County school superintendent asked the Attorney General's office two related questions about how to handle public-records requests. When someone asks for records by email, can the district make them give a physical mailing address or show up in person to inspect the records? And can the district add conditions or limit access when it worries the request is for an improper purpose, like getting employees' personal information? The office said no on both counts.

Chapter 119, the Public Records Act, gives any person the right to inspect and copy public records "at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions." Florida courts have read "reasonable conditions" narrowly. As the Florida Supreme Court put it in Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company, the phrase refers to regulations that protect records from alteration, damage, or destruction, not to hurdles a requester must clear before getting access. Courts have struck down extra burdens: an agency cannot require that a request be in writing (Dade Aviation Consultants v. Knight Ridder), and it cannot make a requester disclose background information about themselves (Bevan v. Wanicka). If the agency keeps a record electronically, it has to provide it electronically when asked.

On purpose, Florida law is blunt: a requester does not have to say why they want records or show any special interest. The motive, even a commercial or annoying one, does not change the right of access. The office acknowledged the district's real concern for employee safety but said suspicion of an improper purpose does not authorize limiting access. It pointed instead to separate criminal statutes that punish the fraudulent or harassing misuse of personal identification information and the criminal use of public records.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion concluded (2011)

The office concluded that a school district may not require a public-records requester to provide a physical mailing address or to appear in person as a way to identify the requester, and may not require an anonymous requester to disclose a name, address, telephone number, or similar identifying information before inspecting or receiving copies. It reasoned that such requirements do not protect records from alteration or destruction (the only purpose of custodial "reasonable conditions" under Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company) but instead impose additional constraints on the requester. The office also noted that if a record exists in electronic form, section 119.01(2)(f) requires the agency to provide it in that medium when requested, so the district could not insist on hard copy to learn the requester's identity.

On the second question, the office concluded that the district is not authorized to impose conditions or limit access based on a suspicion that a request is for an improper purpose. It explained that the Public Records Act contains no requirement that a requester reveal a purpose or show a "special interest," and Florida courts treat the requester's motive (even commercial, or merely obnoxious) as irrelevant to the right of access. Acknowledging the district's concern for employee safety, the office observed that the proper tools are the criminal statutes (sections 817.568 and 817.569) that penalize fraudulent or harassing misuse of personal identification and criminal use of public records, not custodial limits on access. This was an informal advisory letter.

Common questions

Q: Can an agency make me give a mailing address or appear in person to get public records?
A: No. Per this opinion, requiring a physical address or personal appearance to identify the requester is not a permissible "reasonable condition." If records are kept electronically, they must be provided electronically on request.

Q: Do I have to say why I want the records?
A: No. The Public Records Act has no requirement to state a purpose or show a special interest. Courts hold the requester's motive is irrelevant to the right of access.

Q: Can I request records anonymously?
A: Yes. The opinion says an agency may not require an anonymous requester to disclose a name, address, phone number, or similar information before inspecting or receiving copies. (A custodian may still ask how you want copies delivered or about a deposit for copying costs.)

Q: What can an agency do about misuse of employees' personal information?
A: The opinion points to the criminal statutes, sections 817.568 and 817.569, which penalize the fraudulent or harassing use of personal identification information and the criminal use of public records. Those address misuse without restricting lawful access.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 119 establishes a broad right of access to government records, declaring it Florida's policy that all state, county, and municipal records are open for inspection and copying by any person. Section 119.07(1)(a) frames the right, allowing inspection "at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian." The courts, in Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company and Tribune Company v. Cannella, limited "reasonable conditions" to protecting records from harm. A consistent line of decisions (Dade Aviation Consultants, Bevan v. Wanicka, Lorei v. Smith, Microdecisions v. Skinner, Curry v. State) rejects extra burdens and holds that motive, including commercial or harassing motive, does not defeat access. Section 119.01(2)(f) addresses the format of production. The opinion treats employee-safety concerns as a matter for the criminal-misuse statutes (sections 817.568 and 817.569) rather than the records-access framework.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (Public Records Act)
• section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (right of inspection under reasonable conditions)
• section 119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes (production in the medium requested)
• sections 817.568 and 817.569, Florida Statutes (criminal misuse of personal identification and public records)

Cases:

• Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company, 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979), "reasonable conditions" protect records from harm only
• Dade Aviation Consultants v. Knight Ridder, Inc., 800 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), cannot require a written request
• Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), cannot condition access on disclosing background information
• Davis v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, 480 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), access to actual records, not extracts
• Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), purpose of inquiry is immaterial
• Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), commercial use does not alter access rights
• Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), motivation does not affect the right to records

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/records-manner-of-providing-records
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1657

Original opinion text

Dr. Sandra M. Cook

Superintendent of Schools

Washington County School District

652 Third Street

Chipley, Florida 32428

Dear Dr. Cook:

As Superintendent of Schools and on behalf of the Washington County School Board, you ask whether an individual requesting that public records be provided by email may be required by the school district to provide a physical address for mailing copies of the requested public records or to be physically present at the district office to inspect the records. You also ask whether the Public Records Act permits the school district to impose conditions or otherwise limit access to the public records of its employees if the district is concerned that the request is made for an improper purpose. Attorney General Bondi has asked me to respond to your letter.

Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, the Public Records Act, provides for public access to government documents.[1] Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes, makes the right of access to public records clear:

"Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records." (e.s.)

Florida courts have stated that a public records custodian may not impose a rule or condition of inspection which operates to restrict or circumvent a person's right of access.[2] Rather, the courts have held that the "reasonable conditions" referenced in section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes, do not include anything that would hamper or frustrate a person's right of inspection or copying either directly or indirectly. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Wait v. Florida Power & Light Company:[3]

"It is clear to us that this statutory phrase refers not to conditions which must be fulfilled before review is permitted but to reasonable regulations that would permit the custodian of the records to protect them from alteration, damage, or destruction and also to ensure that the person reviewing the records is not subjected to physical constraints designed to preclude review."

The courts of this state have invalidated measures which seek to impose any additional burden on those seeking to exercise their rights to obtain records under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. For example, in Dade Aviation Consultants v. Knight Ridder, Inc.,[4] the court held that an agency was not authorized to require that a request for records be made in writing. Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion 80-67, this office stated that "a request for copies of records which is sufficient to identify the records desired must be honored by the custodian, whether the request is in writing, over the telephone, or made in person, so long as the required fees are paid." In addition, section 119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes, requires an agency to provide a copy of the record in the medium requested if the agency maintains the record in that medium.[5] Thus, if the requested record exists in an electronic format, they must be provided in that format if requested.

With regard to those individuals who are authorized to inspect and receive copies of public records, the Public Records Act provides that "[i]t is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person."[6] (e.s.) Florida courts have held that "the law provides any member of the public access to public records, whether he or she be the most outstanding civic citizen or the most heinous criminal."[7] As stated by one court,

"as long as the citizens of this state desire and insist upon 'open government' and liberal public records disclosure, as a cost of that freedom public officials have to put up with demanding citizens even when they are obnoxious as long as they violate no laws."[8]

Further, the Public Records law contains no requirement that a requestor reveal his purpose for requesting records or show a "special interest" as a condition of receiving access to the public records. Florida courts have recognized the legislative objective underlying the creation of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, was to insure to the people of Florida the right freely to gain access to governmental records without regard to the purpose of such inquiry.[9] Thus, "[t]he motivation of the person seeking the records does not impact the person's right to see them under the Public Records Act."[10]

A policy requiring a physical address for mailing copies of requested public records or the personal appearance of the requestor would not appear to relate to the custodian's duty to protect public records from alteration or destruction, but to impose additional constraints on the requestor. The district, therefore, may not respond to the records request by insisting that the records be provided in hard copy in an effort to determine the identity of the requestor. Nor may the district require the requestor to be physically present at the district office to inspect electronically maintained public records for the same purpose or otherwise require an anonymous requestor to disclose his or her name, address, telephone number, or similar identifying information to the custodian prior to inspecting or receiving copies of public records.[11]

While this office understands your concern for the safety and security of school system employees and their personal information, a school district is not authorized to impose conditions or otherwise limit access to public records based on a suspicion that the request may be for an improper purpose. I would note that the Florida Statutes impose criminal penalties for the unauthorized use of personal identification information for fraudulent or harassment purposes and for the criminal use of a public record or public records information.[12]

I trust that the above informal advisory comments may be of assistance to the school district.

Sincerely,

Joslyn Wilson

Assistant Attorney General

JW/GH/tsh

[1] Sections 119.01 and 119.07, Fla. Stat.

[2] Davis v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, 480 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1986) (person making a public records request under s. 119.07(1), Fla. Stat., entitled to see actual nonexempt records of legal fees paid by hospital board not merely extracts from such records); Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 75-50 (1975). And see State v. Webb, 786 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (requirement that persons with custody of public records allow records to be examined "at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions" is not unconstitutional as applied to public records custodian who was dilatory in responding to public records requests).

[3] 372 So. 2d 420, 425 (Fla. 1979). And see State ex rel. Davis v. McMillan, 38 So. 666 (Fla. 1905); and Tribune Company v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 1984), appeal dismissed sub nom., DePerte v. Tribune Company, 105 S.Ct. 2315 (1985) (the sole purpose of custodial supervision is to protect the records from alteration, damage, or destruction).

[4] 800 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

[5] And see Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 91-61 (1991) (custodian of public records must, if asked for a copy of a computer software disk used by an agency, provide a copy of the disk in its original format; a typed transcript of the disk would not satisfy the requirements of the Public Records Law). Cf. Miami-Dade County v. Professional Law Enforcement Association, 997 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (fact that pertinent information may exist in more than one format is not a basis for exemption or denial of the request).

[6] Section 119.01, Fla. Stat.

[7] Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc. v. Wood, No. 97-688CI-07 (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. February 27, 1997).

[8] State v. Colby, No. MM96-317A-XX (Fla. Highlands Co. Ct. May 23, 1996). And see Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (defendant's conduct in making in excess of 40 public records requests concerning victim constituted a "legitimate purpose," and thus cannot violate the stalking law "because the right to obtain the records is established by statute and acknowledged in the state constitution"); and Salvadore v. City of Stuart, No. 91-812 CA (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. December 17, 1991) ("Even though a public agency may believe that a person or group are fanatics, harassers or are extremely annoying, the public records are available to all of the citizens of the State of Florida.").

[9] See, e.g., Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330, 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 475 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1985) (legislative objective underlying the creation of Ch. 119 was to insure to the people of Florida the right freely to gain access to governmental records; the purpose of such inquiry is immaterial); News-Press Publishing Company, Inc. v. Gadd, 388 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ("the newspaper's motives [for seeking the documents], as well as the hospital's financial harm and public harm defenses, are irrelevant in an action to compel compliance with the Public Records Act"). And see Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 902 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 746 (2005) ("the fact that a person seeking access to public records wishes to use them in a commercial enterprise does not alter his or her rights under Florida's public records law").

[10] Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See also Salvadore v. City of Stuart, No. 91-812 CA (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. December 17, 1991) ("Even though a public agency may believe that a person or group are fanatics, harassers or are extremely annoying, the public records are available to all of the citizens of the State of Florida.").

[11] And see Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (production of public records may not be conditioned upon a requirement that the person seeking inspection disclose background information about himself or herself). A custodian, however, may request information which will facilitate the receipt or delivery of copies of public records if such information has not been provided. For example, if hard copies of documents are requested, the custodian may inquire how such copies should be provided or if a deposit is required for the production and copying of public records, the custodian may inquire how such information may be communicated to the requestor.

[12] See ss. 817.568 and 817.569, Fla. Stat.