City of Frederick v. Randall Family, L.L.C.

841 A.2d 10 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

City of Frederick v. Randall Family, L.L.C.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals
841 A.2d 10 (2004)

LJ

Facts

Angelika Potter was arrested and charged with running a house of prostitution in Frederick, Maryland. The city police executed a search warrant and seized a number of records, including a black book that contained client information. Potter pleaded guilty and received probation before judgment. As part of the plea bargain, Potter’s documents and materials seized pursuant to the warrant were returned to her. Upon receipt, Potter’s attorney began to shred the documents. A resident of the city made allegations that members of the police department were clients of Potter’s house of prostitution, which motivated the plea bargain. The Frederick News Post, trading as the Randall Family, L.L.C. (News Post) (plaintiff), made a request pursuant to the state’s open-records law to the City of Frederick (the city) (defendant) for copies of the investigative records. The city denied the request based on the law’s investigative exception. The city contended that the exception still applied even though the file had been closed, stating that disclosure would provide needless publicity to cooperating witnesses, would violate the involved individuals’ right to privacy, would reveal sources of police information, would hinder future law-enforcement proceedings, and would not further the public’s understanding of government. The News Post filed suit against the city, seeking disclosure of the records and injunctive relief to stop the destruction of the documents. The circuit court found in favor of the News Post, and the city filed an appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Salmon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership