Utah Supreme Court
Can courts seal investigative secrecy applications from public view? Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson Explained
Summary
The Salt Lake Tribune sought access to documents filed by the district attorney requesting secrecy under the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act. The district court denied access, finding the Tribune lacked standing and alternatively that it failed to show good cause for unsealing the documents.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In a significant victory for press access rights, the Utah Supreme Court ruled in Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson that investigative secrecy applications filed under Utah’s Investigative Subpoena Powers Act are public documents that cannot be sealed from public view.
Background and Facts
The Salt Lake Tribune requested access to documents the district attorney had filed seeking secrecy for a criminal investigation under the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act. The district court required the Tribune to intervene and file a written motion. After oral argument, the court denied access, ruling that the Tribune lacked standing to seek the records and alternatively that it failed to show good cause for unsealing the documents.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary questions: whether the Tribune had standing to challenge the court’s secrecy order, and whether the statute authorized courts to seal investigative secrecy applications themselves. The court also had to interpret the complex structure of the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act and determine which documents could be kept secret under its provisions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court granted the Tribune’s petition for extraordinary relief. The court found that the Tribune had standing because the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act presumes court records are open to the public unless the district attorney makes the requisite showing for secrecy. More importantly, the court concluded that nothing in the statute authorizes courts to keep investigative secrecy applications themselves secret—only the underlying investigation records can be sealed.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the public’s right to access court documents under Utah’s investigative subpoena statute. The ruling emphasizes that the burden is on prosecutors to show good cause for secrecy, not on challengers to show good cause for access. Courts must carefully distinguish between sealing underlying investigation records and sealing the applications requesting such secrecy orders.
Case Details
Case Name
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970351
Date Decided
September 23, 1997
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The Investigative Subpoena Powers Act does not authorize district courts to keep investigative secrecy applications secret from the public.
Standard of Review
Questions of law reviewed for correctness with minimal discretion to the trial court; factual determinations reviewed with deference
Practice Tip
When challenging secrecy orders under the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act, remember that the burden is on the district attorney to show good cause for secrecy, not on the challenger to show good cause for access.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.