Circuit Judge Robert K. Rouse ruled April 8 that telephone numbers listed on city-issued cell phones are public record, but certain numbers on phones issued to police that relate to their home numbers and confidential informants are exempt. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed against the city last year by Bill of Rights, Inc., the umbrella corporation of the Shadow Web site operated by Nahum Litt, a retired federal judge, who routinely takes city officials to task in his weekly postings. NSBNEWS.net has obtained a copy of Rouse's ruling through a public records request, which is attached.
NEW SMYRNA BEACH -- Phone calls made on city-issued phones are subject to public inspection, a circuit judge has ruled in a case brought against the city of New Smyrna Beach by Web site operator, the Shadow.
The Shadow boasts victory in his weekly Web edition today under the banner headline "It's time the city accept [sic] defeat in Shadow's public records case."
The Shadow writes in part: "It's time for the city to accept defeat in the Shadow's public records law suit against the city. The court has ruled that records of personal telephone calls are made on city owned telephones are public records."
What the Shadow -- real name Nahum Litt -- fails to acknowledge, though, is the court ruling by Circuit Judge Robert K. Rouse exempts certain phone records involving police officers. And that is a major crux of Litt's ongoing battle with the city.
Rouse's ruling in that regard states: "Telephone numbers of law enforcement personnel appearing on public records otherwise subject to inspection are exempt from inspection and subject to redaction in accordance with section 119.071(4) F.S."
Litt, a former federal judge has singled out police Cmdr. William Drossman in his postings, demanding copies of his cell phone records over the past year. Drossman inadvertently sent a chain e-mail during last year's presidential election regarding then-candidate Obama to two other cops on a city-issued related to a controversial passage in a book Obama had written.
Though Drossman was cleared of any wrongdoing through an outside investigation, the city reiterated its policy that computers were for official use only. The Shadow has said he wants to inspect Drossman's phone numbers to see if he has contacted white supremacists.
Drossman, who is white and a member of the NAACP, has said the Shadow's claims are ludicrous and part of a pattern of personal attacks against him because of past police investigations involving some of Litt's friends. Chief Ronald Pagano agreed, saying the Shadow's claims have no merit.
Litt, represented legally by former City Attorney Edward "George" Beazley Jr., under his umbrella corporation, Bill of Rights Inc., has mercilessly attacked Drossman, as well as a dozen or so city officials, over the last several years.
Litt was upset that the city charged him $325 for a redacted phone bill for Drossman.
Litt, through Beazley maintains the city is charging excessive amounts to discourage routine public records requests.
But the judge's ruling is clear that certain phone records are exempt from inspection.
Rouse's ruling in that regard states: "Telephone numbers of law enforcement personnel appearing on public records otherwise subject to inspection are exempt from inspection and subject to redaction in accordance with section 119.071(4) F.S."
A week ago Sunday, Beazley sent NSBNEWS.net a statement, stating, "The city had attempted to prevent the inspection and copying of the city's cellular telephone records by claiming that records relating to personal telephone calls made on city's cellular telephones were not public records.
"Under this legal theory, the city attempted to charge hundred of dollars in special service fees to cover the cost of redacting all the information relating to personal telephone calls that appeared on the city's cellular telephone bills," Beazley wrote. "The lawsuit began when the city attempted to charge $351.24 to inspect and copy ten pages of cellular telephone bills. The law suit claimed that the redaction fee was merely a ruse to prevent the inspection of the public records."
In his April 8 ruling, Rouse was emphatic in upholding Florida's public records law, stating in part: "The court finds and determines, as a matter of law, that billing documents regarding personal calls made and received by city employees on city-owned or city-leased cellular telephones are public records when those documents are received and maintained in connection with the transaction of the official business of the city; and, the "official business" of a city includes paying for telephone service and obtaining reimbursement from employees for personal calls."
That means all calls made on a city-issued cell phones are public records. But there are exemptions, which the judge also cited in his ruling and those relate to calls made to or from cellular phones issued to police officers as they relate to their home numbers and those of confidential informants.
City Attorney Frank Gummey said he would not comment until the case is concluded, though he did say it's far from over.