Board of Managers of the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System, et al. v. Gannett Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE DELAWARE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, an agency of the State of Delaware, RONALD J. TORGERSON, Executive Director of the Board, STATE BUREAU OF IDENTIFICATION, an agency of the State of Delaware, and CAPTAIN DAVID F. DEPUTY, Director of the State Bureau of § Identification, Plaintiffs, v. GANNETT CO., t/a THE NEWS JOURNAL, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § No. 145, 2001 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 01C-01-039. § § § § § § § § § § Submitted: April 2, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 4th day of May 2001, it appears to the Court that: (1) A complaint for declaratory judgment was filed by the Plaintiffs in the Superior Court on January 25, 2001. On the same date, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a question of law to this Court. The Plaintiffs motion to certify was opposed by the Defendant. By order dated April 2, 2001, the Superior Court granted the Plaintiffs motion to certify and certified the following question of law to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 41: Does Chapter 85 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code preclude the State Bureau of Identification from disseminating the SBI, CJIS, or Defendant Identification numbers, or any form or equivalent thereof, in the DELJIS database, to any person who is not authorized to obtain criminal history record information under the provisions of Chapter 85? (2) The Court has considered the question certified and the particular circumstances of this case and has determined that certification of the question of law is not appropriate. A certification will not be accepted if facts material to the question certified are in dispute. Supr. Ct. R. 41(b). The limited record in this Court reflects that the Defendant opposed the Plaintiffs motion to certify on the basis that there are, or potentially are, factual disputes that should be resolved by the Superior Court in the first instance. The Court finds that the certification does not adequately demonstrate that there are no material disputed facts. (3) The Court, in its discretion, finds that the appellate process is more orderly under all the circumstances of this matter. After the Superior Court has decided the complaint for declaratory judgment, and in the event of an appeal, this 2 Court will have the benefit of the Superior Court s decision based upon wellarticulated findings of facts and conclusions of law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dann.* NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Certification of Question of Law by the Superior Court is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice * Del. Supr., ___ A.2d ___, No. 538, 2000 at 2, Per Curiam (March 26, 2001) ("It is preferable as a matter of the orderly administration of justice for the trial courts of this State to decide in the first instance all questions of law, including new and challenging legal questions, so that this Court will have the benefit of the reasoning and analysis of the trial court.") 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
