Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations on Public Records and Property (excerpts)

19.35 Access to records...

(5) Record destruction. No authority may destroy any record at any time after the receipt of a request for inspection or copying of the record under sub. (1) until after the request is granted or until at least 60 days after the date that the request is denied or, if the requester is a committed or incarcerated person, until at least 90 days after the date that the request is denied. If an authority receives written notice that an action relating to a record has been commenced under s. 19.37, the record may not be destroyed until after the order of the court in relation to such record is issued and the deadline for appealing that order has passed, or, if appealed, until after the order of the court hearing the appeal is issued. If the court orders the production of any record and the order is not appealed, the record may not be destroyed until after the request for inspection or copying is granted. (6) Elected official responsibilities. No elected official is responsible for the record of any other elected official unless he or she has possession of the record of that other official. A mandamus petition to inspect a county hospital's statistical, administrative and other records not identifiable with individual patients, states a cause of action under this section. Police daily arrest lists must be open for public inspection. This section is a statement of the common law rule that public records are open to public inspection subject to common law limitations. Section 59.14, 1979 stats., [now 59.20 (3)] is a legislative declaration granting those persons who come under its coverage an absolute right of inspection subject only to reasonable administrative regulations. A newspaper had the right to intervene to protect its right to examine sealed court files. Although a meeting was properly closed, in order to refuse inspection of records of the meeting, the custodian was required by sub. (1) (a) to state specific and sufficient public policy reasons why the public's interest in nondisclosure outweighed the right of inspection. Courts must apply the open records balancing test to questions involving disclosure of court records. Under the Hathaway test, a party must show that the public interests favoring secrecy outweigh those favoring disclosure. Public records germane to pending litigation were available under this section even though the discovery cutoff deadline had passed. In determining whether the trial court properly upheld a custodian's denial of access, an appellate court will inquire whether the trial court made a factual determination supported by the record of whether documents implicate a secrecy interest, and, if so, whether the secrecy interest outweighs the interests favoring release. That releasing records would reveal a confidential informant's identity was a legally specific reason for denial of a records request; the public interest in not revealing informant's identity outweighed public interest in disclosure of records. The recognized public policy interest in denying access to police personnel files overrides the presumption that records should be released.