2. Purpose of request.

The Alabama Public Records Law contains no provision with respect to whether a requester's purpose can affect the right of access to public writings. In Holcombe v. State ex rel. Chandler, 240 Ala. 590, 200 So. 739 (1941), the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that although the public has the right of a reasonable and free examination of public records, this privilege does not exist where "the purpose is purely speculative or from idle curiosity." Holcombe, 200 So. at 746. The Holcombe court expressly recognized the legitimacy of media interest in public records, however, as follows:

[P]ersons engaged in the publication of newspapers have such an interest in the public records of public officers as to entitle them to a due or reasonable inspection of such public records. The function of the press in gathering information for the public to enable public affairs to be intelligently discussed is of great importance.

240 Ala. at 597, 200 So. at 746.

Alabama courts have also recognized the legitimacy of commercial purpose in a request for access to public records. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has noted that § 36-12-40 "makes no distinction between disclosure for profit or otherwise," and that court refused to create a distinction where the statute had not. Walsh v. Barnes, 541 So. 2d 33, 35 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) ("[t]here is no exception under § 36-12-40 disallowing one to inspect or copy public writings simply because one desires to use such for personal gain;" insurance agent entitled to copy of retirement system's actuarial tables).

A 1991 decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the right of the custodian of public records in the City of Hoover to require the requester to complete a written request form that includes (1) specification of the documents sought and (2) the reasons for the document request. Blankenship v. City of Hoover, 590 So. 2d 245 (Ala. 1991). As a concurring/dissenting justice pointed out in a separate opinion in that case, the mere fact of asking for a reason for the request could have a chilling effect on the right of access to public records. 590 So. 2d at 251-52 (Adams, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Members of the news media have been granted access to public records routinely, however, since the City of Hoover began requiring the written request form, simply by identifying their reason as "public records request pursuant to Alabama law" or some similar statement.

More recently, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held “a requester is not required to demonstrate good cause before he or she is entitled to inspect public writings.”  Ex parte Perch, 17 So. 3d 649, 651 (Ala. 2009) (holding that an inmate did not have prove that his requests for public records were relevant or necessary for him to challenge the validity of his conviction). 

Rule 33 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration provides that a requester of computer-based information that is maintained by the Administrative Office of Courts ("AOC") must supply the following information, which will be used in evaluating the request:

(1) Identifying information concerning the applicant;

(2) Statement of the exact information requested;

(3) Statement of the reasons the information is sought;

(4) Statement of the intended use; and

(5) Statement as to whom the information will be distributed or disclosed.

Computer-based information about pending cases is available online, however, through the State's ALALINC system, for an annual user fee, with no inquiry as to the purpose of the request for ALALINC service.