Even when both sides said that their personal email communications contained merely "friendly banter" and no harassment suit seems contemplated, the embarrassing content may be released to the public. The battle between the public's right to know and the right to privacy has met in the email arena, again.
The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on a case that could release nearly 900 emails that were thought to be private by those who wrote and received them.
Back in 2005, the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review newspaper sued to obtain emails under the Idaho Public Records Act to learn more about the demise of the Kootenai County juvenile drug court. About 460 emails were released, but others, including hundreds between Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas and his former employee, Juvenile Drug Court supervisor Marina Kalani, were held back for privacy reasons, according to the Associated Press.
The paper demanded all of the emails and Idaho 2nd District Judge John R. Stegner agreed. The emails were written by public employees during public hours using taxpayer-paid computers. Therefore, they are public records. The ruling is under appeal.
"Gregory D. Horne, a Coeur d’Alene lawyer representing Kalani, argued that 889 e-mails exchanged between his client and Douglas are personal in nature and therefore should not be released under the Idaho Public Records Act.
"As a government employee, Kalani has a constitutional right of privacy that should prohibit the release of the e-mails, even if they were sent on a government computer during the work day, Horne argued." -- reported the Associated Press.
In an unrelated case involving Kootenai County, a different employee accused a different attorney in the same department, former Chief Deputy Prosecutor Rick Baughman, of harassment, reported the Associated Press. The Spokesman-Review filed a lawsuit in February to compel the county to release records and e-mail correspondence involving sexual harassment claims made against Baughman. This case also went to Judge Stegner who ruled again that emails are public record.
“Absent any direction from the Supreme Court, I wouldn’t expect to rule any different than I did with the Kalani case,” Stegner said, adding later, “I don’t see any fundamental distinction between the facts of this case and the facts of the Kalani case.”
We will probably hear the results of the Idaho Supreme Court ruling in the summer. The Freedom of Information Act blog reports that "One of the problems is that state public records laws were written well before e-mail was ever thought of." And I agree with the blog conclusion, " even if courts decide that the laws do not pertain to e-mail, the issue will not go away. Rather, I look for the issue to switch from one of litigation to one of legislation, and a movement to amend state public record laws to specifically include e-mail and other technologically advance messaging systems will occur."
Subscribe by Email
