City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC

SALMON, J. After learning that Angelika Potter was running a house of prostitution in the City of Frederick (“the City”), the City Police obtained a warrant that allowed them to search Ms. Potter’s home and apartment and to seize records found there. The warrant was executed on July 29, 1999; the police seized computer equipment, computer records, and numerous documents containing the names, addresses, and other data relating to Ms. Potter’s customers. The State’s Attorney for Frederick County recused himself from prosecuting the Potter case due to an allegation that a relative of an employee of the State’s Attorney’s office worked for Ms. Potter. An Assistant State’s Attorney for Montgomery County was appointed to investigate and, if warranted, bring charges.

After considering the matter, charges were brought against Ms. Potter in the District Court for Frederick County. On November 15, 2000, Ms. Potter entered a guilty plea to the charge of operating a house of assignation — a misdemean- or. As part of a plea agreement, the District Court judge struck the finding of guilt and entered a finding of probation before judgment. The only conditions of probation were that ⁵⁴⁷ Ms. Potter pay a $100 fine, plus $55 court costs.

The State agreed, as part of the plea bargain, to return to Ms. Potter all the documents and other material seized pursuant to the search warrant. Immediately after Ms. Potter received the probation-before-judgment disposition, public interest in the documents and other items seized (hereafter “the black book”) was piqued by Charlene Edmonds, who was then president of the Frederick chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Ms. Edmonds had been in the news because City police officers, acting on orders of the Chief of Police, R.R. Raffensberger, had improperly harassed Ms. Edmonds by placing her under police surveillance. These charges were sustained, and as a result, Chief Raffensberger was demoted one rank by the Mayor of Frederick.

Following Ms. Potter’s plea, Ms. Edmonds made the following allegations concerning what she perceived to be the lenient treatment that Ms. Potter received: 1. Among Ms. Potter’s customers were various unnamed public officials and prominent members of the Frederick community, whose names were listed in the black book; 2. Had the police gone forward with a trial against Ms. Potter, names of the public officials and other individuals mentioned in the black book would have been revealed by evidence introduced at trial; 3. Ms. Edmonds had received an anonymous tip that Frederick City Alderman Blane Young had been protective of Chief Raffensberger [in regard to the improper surveillance charge] because Mr. Young, and others associated with him, were named in the black book; 4.

According to the anonymous tip, upper echelons of the police department acted to cover up the fact that these names were contained in the black book in exchange for Mr. Young’s support of upper echelon officers in the department. On November 22, 2000, the Randall Family, LLC, t/a the Frederick News Post (“News Post”), by Steven Miller, a News ⁵⁴⁸ Post staff writer, made a request for copies of the records seized in the police raid. 1 The request read: Please make available for inspection and copy evidence related to State of Maryland v. Angelika Elisabeth Potter (6U-21769 Frederick County District Court). The evidence was seized by police on July 29, 1999[,] at 8765 Treasure Ave., Walkersville[,] MD. and at 350A Prospect Blvd., Apt. 104, Frederick[,] MD. Items requested for inspection and copy include the content of several address book computer programs used as a client list; record keeping books; spiral notebooks used as appointment books; and contents of Microsoft Money program used for business accounting.

The request was addressed to the City and was made pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA”), which is codified in sections 10-611 through 10-629 of the State Government Article (“SG”) of the Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol.). On November 27, 2000, the Associated Press (“the AP”) also made a MPIA request of the City, which was, in all material respects, similar to that made by the News Post. Daniel Trey, a resident of Thurmont, Maryland, on January 3, 2001, also filed a MPIA request, which was modeled after the earlier' ones by the AP and the News Post. Debra Borden, who was designated by the City as a representative of the custodian of the records seized by the police (and also an Assistant City Attorney for Frederick), denied all ⁵⁴⁹ three MPIA requests.

In doing so, she relied on section 10-618(f)(1)(i) of the MPIA, which reads: (f) Investigations. — (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian may deny inspection of: (i) records of investigation conducted by ... a police department____ The denial letters all included the following paragraph: The items you requested are records of an investigation conducted by the Frederick Police Department for a law enforcement purpose, therefore we may lawfully deny your request. In accordance with § 10 — 614(b) (3) (ii) of the Public Information Act, you are hereby notified of the available remedies for review of this decision with respect to the denied material. You may, but are not required to, file an administrative appeal with this agency upon request. Public Information Act § 10-622.

In addition, you may file an action with the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland to enforce the provisions of the Maryland Public Information Act under the authority granted in § 10-623 of the Act. [2] The News Post and the AP promptly filed a joint Administrative Appeal in which they contended that the City had no right, under the MPIA, to deny them access to the contents of the black book. The request for administrative hearing was filed pursuant to the City of Frederick’s Public Information Act Rules and Regulations. Lynn Board, the City Attorney, was named as the MPIA hearing officer by the mayor. Ms. Board conducted a hearing on December 22, 2000, concerning the denial of the requests.

Debra Borden, the Assistant City Attorney and the person who had denied the request, represented the City at the hearing. Ms. Borden, in addition, was the most important witness who testified at that hearing. ⁵⁵⁰ During the presentation of the City’s case-in-chief, Ms. Borden said that the City denied the MPIA request pursuant to the “investigative records exception” set forth in section 10-618(f)(l)(i) of the statute. She gave no details. After the City rested its case, counsel for the News Post moved for judgment on the ground that the City’s reasons for denying the request were inadequate as a matter of law.

Ms. Borden then asked to reopen the City’s case because she did not “feel like [she had] testified. [She had] made legal arguments.” She also said that reopening was justified because it was “difficult to be the lawyer and the witness at the same time.” The motion to reopen was granted. Ms. Borden then testified that prior to denying the MPIA request she looked at all the documents in the police investigation file concerning Angelika Potter. She opined that the police investigation exception to the MPIA applies even if the police investigation file has been closed. She also said that prior to denying the MPIA requests she considered (1) what is in the public interest in terms of releasing these types of documents and (2) what effect disclosure would have upon the public interest.

In her opinion, the purpose of the exception set forth in 10-618(f)(l)(i) “is to give custodians the leeway to make these difficult decisions and to give them the authority to do it based on knowing what’s in the documents.” It was established that the “official custodian” of the records in question was Chief Raffensberger. Therefore, prior to the denial of the request, Ms. Borden talked to the chief. She could not remember, however, exactly what Chief Raffensber-ger said. She did recall that the police chief discussed with her the “ramifications of releasing” names of people who were on Ms. Potter’s customer list.

In the course of cross-examination, Ms. Borden cited several other justifications for her decision to deny the MPIA request, viz: Disclosure would provide needless publicity to cooperating witnesses; disclosure would be unfair to the parties subject to the investigation and would violate those persons’ rights to privacy; and disclosure would not contribute signifi ⁵⁵¹ cantly to the public’s understanding of government, would hinder future law enforcement proceedings, and would reveal sources of police information. The News Post called its managing editor, Michael Powell, as its only witness. Mr. Powell testified that access to copies of the seized records was necessary to investigate Ms. Ed-monds’s allegations concerning Chief Raffensberger and in particular to determine “whether there was a connection ... with officials or public figures in Frederick County and with how ... [the Potter] case was handled.” The AP called Denise Cabrerra, the Chief of its Baltimore Bureau. On direct examination, the following exchange occurred: As a result of watching and covering the story of allegations of ... personal surveillance [of Ms. Edmonds] and the fact that there had been some disciplinary action against the police chief, in that case, we [the AP] wondered whether her allegations about the black book were also true because, initially, the allegations of the Police Chief’s surveillance of her was denied.

Q. Were those [the] allegations that were sustained? A. Yes, they were sustained and he admitted that he or the mayor — I can’t remember if it was the mayor or the police chief — said that it was an act of poor judgment but that, yes, they had — it had happened but it was an act of poor judgment. Q. And how did the — how would the existence of the black book play into the mayor or police chief’s treatment of Ms. Edmonds? A. Well, the fact that she is being surveilled at all, we wondered whether that had anything to do — her knowledge of this black book had anything to do with the surveillance that was going on, besides her being president of the N.A.A.C.P. and, initially, as I remember initially, David [3] ⁵⁵² said to me that he hadn’t taken that allegation seriously, that this book existed at all.

Q. What, if any, impact or what, if any, concern does AP have with respect to the treatment of a police chief as a result — by the mayor in terms of, I think he was demoted— the police chief was demoted one (1) rank or something? A. Yes, he was demoted one (1) rank and was on two (2) weeks suspension [several words inaudible]. Q. Is there any relationship between that issue and the allegations about the Potter evidence? A. Well, our concern is that you have an admission by the chief executive of a city that the chief law enforcement officer has committed a crime and that the punishment for that crime has been virtually minimal and it was, again, a member of a minority community — a leader of the minority community and so, there’s public interest in that kind of an action.

At the close of the December 22, 2000, administrative hearing, Ms. Board reserved her decision for sixty days on the pending motion for judgment. While the administrative appeal was still pending, the City, on January 9, 2001, filed an action for declaratory relief, in which it named Ms. Potter as a defendant and asked the Circuit Court for Frederick County to decide whether Ms. Potter’s plea agreement with the State required the City to return all the seized evidence to Ms. Potter. The AP and the News Post, on February 16, 2001, filed a motion to intervene in the declaratory judgment action. Movants also filed a proposed answer and a proposed counter-complaint, in which they sought to enjoin the City from returning any of Ms. Potter’s documents pending an administrative determination as to whether they had a right to copies of those documents under the MPIA.

While the motion to intervene was pending, the City and counsel for Ms. Potter agreed that the City should immediately return to Ms. Potter all items obtained pursuant to the search warrant. The pending administrative appeal was dis ⁵⁵³ missed, on February 27, 2001, by the City as moot on the grounds that the City (purportedly) no longer possessed the documents that were the subject of the MPIA requests. The next day, February 28, 2001, the City and Ms. Potter filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the declaratory judgment action. That same day, the City gave Ms. Potter’s attorney what its attorneys thought were all the extant copies of the black book.

Upon receiving this material, Ms. Potter’s attorney immediately began to shred documents. The News Post and the AP quickly learned of the City’s (and Ms. Potter’s counsel’s) attempt to make an “end run” around the MPIA. Accordingly, these news organizations promptly sought injunctive relief to prevent further spoilation of the documents. A hearing was held on February 28 at 4 p.m. in the circuit court, concerning the injunction proposed by the News Post and the AP.

At the hearing, Ms. Potter’s counsel agreed to shred no more documents and to store all documents that had not been destroyed, pending further direction from the court. On March 5, 2001, the circuit court signed an order directing (1) that no more documents be shredded and (2) that those items that had been given to Ms. Potter’s counsel, in whatever form, be placed in a locked storage facility. In compliance with the March 5 order, the existing black book items in Potter’s possession were placed in a storage facility by Ms. Potter’s counsel with the assistance of a City attorney. The key to that facility was then given to the clerk of the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

On March 23, 2001, the News Post and the AP filed a new action in the Circuit Court for Frederick County in which they named James S. Grimes, the then Mayor of Frederick; Debra S. Borden; Lynn Board; and the City of Frederick as defendants. Count I of the complaint was filed pursuant to section 10-623 of the MPIA. 4 In Count I, the plaintiffs asked the ⁵⁵⁴ court to determine, inter alia, whether they were entitled to inspect and copy the items seized by the police. In other counts, plaintiffs asked for damages, both actual and punitive, together with attorney’s fees and costs. Shortly after the aforementioned complaint was filed, Daniel Trey filed a substantively similar lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

The two lawsuits were later consolidated. The City filed a lengthy answer to both complaints. Afterward, the News Post and the AP filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Movants asked the court to find, as a matter of law, “that the City should have produced and should now produce” Ms. Potter’s black book pursuant to the MPIA.

The motion for partial summary judgment was supported by an affidavit of Michael Powell and copies of several newspaper articles relative to Ms. Edmonds’s allegation and the Potter matter in general, along with a transcript of the administrative hearing conducted on December 22, 2000. On October 23, 2001, a hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment was held. Counsel for the City advised the court that attorneys for the City initially thought that they had turned over all of the black book documents to counsel for Ms. Potter on February 28, 2001. It later learned, however, that the police department had retained some of the copies of the documents at issue.

To further complicate matters, computers and computer records were turned over to the State Police by the City; the State Police thereafter copied the computer records onto disks and, “sometime in the summer” ⁵⁵⁵ of 2001, returned the disks to the City. 5 Counsel for the City assured the court that all of the original materials seized in the raid were sent to Ms. Potter’s attorney, although counsel for the City did not know which of the original documents had been shredded by Ms. Potter’s counsel. Counsel for the City also advised that the City had no objection if the court allowed release to the plaintiffs of the materials that Ms. Potter’s counsel had put in storage. In counsel’s words, “[W]e [the City] would love to have ... [the documents in storage] disclosed.” Later counsel for the City said: “[W]e don’t care what’s in storage. It, it would certainly ⁵⁵⁶ eliminate a lot of controversy that’s swirled around this if the court would say here, just give those to the papers and let 'em knock themselves out.” Despite its wish that the items in storage be turned over to the press, the City took a contrary position concerning black book material currently in the City’s physical possession.

As to items in the City’s possession, counsel for the City argued that the documents were appropriately withheld under the MPIA for the reasons enunciated by Ms. Borden at the December 22, 2000, hearing. Counsel for the News Post argued that the justification that Ms. Borden gave at the December 22, 2000, administrative hearing was insufficient to support withholding the documents. Counsel stressed that (1) plaintiffs had not asked to see any documents prepared by the police; (2) instead, plaintiffs wanted to inspect only copies of documents and/or property seized in the raid. The motions judge orally ruled on October 23, 2001, that the City had failed to justify its refusal with particularity or with specific facts and therefore had not met its burden of proving that withholding the black book was in the public interest.

The motions judge directed counsel for the News Post to prepare an order granting partial summary judgment as to Count I in favor of the AP and the News Post. Counsel for Mr. Trey then orally moved for partial summary judgment on the same ground advanced by the AP and the News Post. The court allowed the City fifteen days to respond to Trey’s oral summary judgment motion. On November 7, 2001, another hearing was held.

At the hearing, the court orally granted partial summary judgment in favor of Trey. 6 Also, the motions judge announced his deci ⁵⁵⁷ sion to add a proviso to the order proposed by the News Post, which would direct the “plaintiffs not to reveal names to the public, except for names of public officials and/or public figures.” The plaintiffs’ objections to the additional language were unavailing. The court’s written order, from which this appeal follows, read in part: For the reasons set forth in open [cjourt at the October 23rd hearing, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be and the same hereby is granted. It is further Ordered that the City of Frederick shall produce to Plaintiffs those documents in its possession responsive to the Plaintiffs’ Public Information Act Requests. It is further Ordered that those documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests that were previously in the City’s custody and which are now in the [cjourt’s custody shall be immediately produced to Plaintiffs.

The Clerk shall turn over the key to the storage facility where these documents are located to Plaintiffs’ designated representative immediately. Plaintiffs not to publish names to public!,] except for names of public officials and/or public figures. Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied without prejudice as to those documents that may be presently in the custody of the Office of Special Prosecutor. On November 7, the court also granted the City’s motion to certify the orders granting partial summary judgment as final judgments pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-602(b). 7 ⁵⁵⁸ I. The City raises three questions on appeal, viz: I. Are plaintiffs “persons of interest” under section 10-611(e) so that the custodian of the police investigatory file is not required to provide a detailed explanation under section 10 — 618(f)(1) for denying access?

II

Have plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish that the custodian of records did not reasonably believe that the denial was in the public interest?

III

Did the circuit court fail to consider the interests of Potter and other persons in interest under the Public Information Act, including denial mandated by State Government code, §§ 10-615 and 10-617? The News Post filed a cross-appeal, in which it asks: Whether, having granted in full the News Post’s request for records, the trial court’s order restricting the use of information in the News Post’s possession constituted an impermissible prior restraint?

II

Before determining whether all parts of the motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted, it should be recalled that the court ordered that all documents in the court’s custody “shall be immediately produced to the plaintiffs.” The documents in the court’s custody referred to the unshredded portions of Ms. Potter’s black book that the City turned over to Ms. Potter’s counsel on February 28, 2001. As mentioned earlier, Ms. Potter’s counsel, accompanied by a City attorney, put those materials in a storage facility; the key to the facility was then given to the clerk of the circuit court. In regard to the portion of the partial summary judgment order dealing with documents in the court’s custody, the ⁵⁵⁹ City has no legitimate ground to now object because it took the position before the motions court that it would welcome the release of all documents in storage. See Van Royen v. Lacey, 266 Md. 649, 651-52 , 296 A.2d 426 (1972)(“A man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.”)(quoting Cave v. Mills, 7 H & W 927 (Court of Exchequer)).

Therefore, it is crystal clear that the circuit court was justified in granting partial summary judgment as to MPIA documents in the court’s custody.

III

ANALYSIS A. Issue 1 Was the City required to spell out its reasons for denying the request? SG section 10-614(b) provides: (b) Grant or denial by custodian. — (1) Within 30 days after receiving an application, the custodian shall grant or deny the application. (2) A custodian who approves the application shall produce the public record immediately or within the reasonable period that is needed to retrieve the public record, but not to exceed 30 days after receipt of the application. (3) A custodian who denies the application shall: (i) immediately notify the applicant; (ii) within 10 working days, give the applicant a written statement that gives: 1. the reasons for the denial; 2. the legal authority for the denial; and 3. notice of the remedies under this Part III of this subtitle for review of the denial; and (iii) permit inspection of any part of the record that is subject to inspection and is reasonably severable. ⁵⁶⁰ (4) With the consent of the applicant, any time limit imposed under this subsection may be extended for not more than 30 days.

(Emphasis added.) From the plain language of section 10-614(b)(3)(ii)(l) and (2), it is clear that Ms. Borden’s denial letters to the reques-ters (i.e., the appellees) was insufficient. Her denial letters set forth the (alleged) “legal authority” for the denial but did not, as she was required to do, give “the reasons for the denial.” SG sections 10-616 and 10-617 set forth exceptions to the general rule that the public has the right to see documents held by government officials. If those exceptions are applicable, the custodian is required to deny access to the records. Examples of situations where denial is required are when the requester seeks to review welfare records, letters of reference (§ 10-616(c) and (d)), and financial information — except for salaries of public employees (§ 10-617(b)).

SG section 10-618, on the other hand, gives a custodian of records, under certain circumstances, the discretion to deny MPIA requests. Section 10-618(a) and (f) provides: Permissible denials. (a) In general. — Unless otherwise provided by law, if a custodian believes that inspection of a part of a public record by the applicant would be contrary to the public interest, the custodian may deny inspection by the applicant of that part, as provided in this section. * * * (f) Investigations. — (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian may deny inspection of: (i) records of investigations conducted by the Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, a city or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff; (ii) an investigatory file compiled for any other law enforcement, judicial, correctional, or prosecution purpose; or ⁵⁶¹ (iii) records that contain intelligence information or security procedures of the Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, a city or county attorney, a police department, a State or local correctional facility, or a sheriff. (2) A custodian may deny inspection by a person in interest only to the extent that the inspection would: (i) interfere with a valid and proper law enforcement proceeding; (ii) deprive another person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; (iii) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (iv) disclose the identity of a confidential source; (v) disclose an investigative technique or procedure; (vi) prejudice an investigation; or (vii) endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

(Emphasis added.) A “person in interest” is defined in the MPIA as “a person or government unit that is the subject of a public record or a designee of the person or governmental unit.” See SG § 10-611(e)(1). Neither the News Post, the AP, nor Trey are “persons in interest” as defined in the MPIA. Thus, section 10-618(f)(l) is here applicable. When a request for public documents is made by a person in interest, that person is entitled to more favorable treatment under section 10 — 618(f)(2) of the MPIA than a requester who falls under section 10-618(0(1).

Office of State Prosecutor v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 356 Md. 118, 137 , 737 A.2d 592 (1999) (“Judicial Watch”). The treatment is more favorable under section 10-618(0(2) because (1) if the request falls under (0(2), the custodian can deny the request only for one of the seven reasons set forth in Paragraph (0(2), whereas under (0(1) the discretion of the record custodian is broader and the request may be denied if, for any reason, disclosure would be contrary to the public interest; (2) under Paragraph (0(2), a ⁵⁶² particularized showing as to every document withheld is necessary. Judicial Watch, 356 Md. at 136-37 , 737 A.2d 592. The Court explained in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Maryland Committee Against the Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 96-97 , 617 A.2d 1040 (1993): Section 10-618(a) speaks of denying inspection “of a part of a public record by the applicant [that] would be contrary to the public interest.” Where, as here, the request for inspection relates to the record of a police department investigation and the request is made by other than a person in interest, the severability provisions of the Act operate in a relatively restricted fashion.

This can be illustrated by comparing paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of 10-618(f). Under paragraph (2), inspection may be denied to the person in interest “only to the extent” that the inspection would give rise to one of the seven enumerated circumstances. That statutory mandate requires analyzing the investigation file material in order to distinguish between that which reflects one or more of the enumerated circumstances and that which does not. In contrast, when the request to inspect is made by one other than a person in interest and paragraph (1) applies, the “custodian may deny inspection of ... records of investigations conducted by ... a police department.” Permissible denial applies to the entire record, to the extent that inspection would be contrary to the public interest.

(Emphasis added.) From the above, it is plain that under Paragraph (f)(1) a particularized showing is not required as to every document withheld. The question then becomes: When Paragraph (f)(1) is applicable, may a custodian simply refer to the “investigation exception” without providing any particularized facts showing why it would be against the public interest to grant the request? The City contends that when, as here, section 10 — 618(f)(1) is applicable, the custodian of record can deny the request without giving “a detailed explanation.” We glean from the ⁵⁶³ City’s brief that it also takes the position that it would have been sufficient if Ms. Borden had said at the December 22, 2000, hearing, without elaboration, “We have decided to deny the request under section 10 — 618(f)(1) because the City believes that divulging the information would be contrary to the public interest.” The appellees counter that such a generic denial is permissible under 10 — 618(f)(1) only if the denial involves an investigative file concerning an ongoing police investigation. We agree with the appellees’ analysis of 10-618(0(1).

The purpose and construction of the MPIA was recently analyzed by the Court of Appeals in Office of Governor v. Washington Post Co., 360 Md. 520 , 759 A.2d 249 (2000). The Washington Post had requested, pursuant to the MPIA, copies of the telephone records of Governor Parris Glendening and two of his most important aides. Id. at 526 , 759 A.2d 249 . Access to the records was denied by the governor on the basis, inter alia, of executive privilege.

Id. at 561 , 759 A.2d 249 . In the Washington Post case, Judge Eldridge, for the Court, said: [IJt would be useful to underscore certain well-established general principles governing the interpretation and application of the Maryland Public Information Act. This Court recently reiterated in Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 80-81 , 721 A.2d 196, 199 (1998), that “[t]he Maryland Public Information Act establishes a public policy and a general presumption in favor of disclosure of government or public documents. The statute thus provides (§ 10-612(a) and (b) of the State Government Article): ‘(a) General Right to information. — All persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.

(b) General construction. — To carry out the right set forth in subsection (a) of this section, unless an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a person in interest ⁵⁶⁴ would result, this Part III of this subtitle shall be construed in favor of permitting inspection of a public record, with the least cost and least delay to the person or governmental unit that requests the inspection.’ ” Accordingly, as we pointed out in Kirwan, 352 Md. at 84 , 721 A.2d at 200 , “the statute should he interpreted to favor disclosure.” See also, e.g., Office of the Attorney General v. Gallagher, 359 Md. 341, 343 , 753 A.2d 1036, 1037 (2000)(“the Act is to be constructed in favor of disclosure”); Office of State Prosecutor v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 356 Md. 118, 134 , 737 A.2d 592, 601 (1999)(“It is the policy of this State that its citizens have ‘access to information about the affairs of government’ ”); Fioretti v. Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners, 351 Md. 66, 73 , 716 A.2d 258, 262 (1998)(the statute embodies the principle that citizens “ ‘be accorded wide-ranging access to public information’ ”); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Maryland Committee Against the Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 80-81 , 617 A.2d 1040, 1041 (1993); Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759, 771 , 481 A.2d 221, 227 (1984)(“Without doubt the bias of the Md. Act is toward disclosure”); Faulk v. State’s Attorney for Harford County, 299 Md. 493, 506-07 , 474 A.2d 880, 887 (1984); A.S. Abell Publishing Co. v. Mezzanote, supra, 297 Md. [26,] 32, 464 A.2d [1068,] 1071 [ (1983) ];