Topeka ? The Department of Corrections must make more records about parolees available to the public, the state’s highest court ruled Friday.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with the Wichita Eagle in a three-year legal battle with the department.

	Full opinions of Kansas Supreme Court cases at www.kscourts.org

The court ruled the department attempted to withhold too many records related to supervision histories of former inmates. It said most must be available to the public.

In a broader statement, the justices also said government attorneys could not claim some records were a “work product” in preparation for litigation. They said that exception did not apply “where litigation would not reasonably be anticipated under an objective standard.”

The decision is viewed as the court’s most comprehensive review of the Kansas Open Records Act since it became law in 1984.

“For us, this has always been a matter of public safety,” said Rick Thames, the Eagle’s editor. “It’s great.”

A spokes-man for the Corrections Department was not available for comment.

In 1999, the Eagle sought the names of parolees charged with murder or manslaughter from 1996 to 1999, as well as information about the crimes.

The newspaper also sought records from internal department panels that reviewed serious incidents involving parolees, as well as the names of panel members.

The department provided some records but refused to turn over others it deemed part of the parolees’ supervision histories. That refusal triggered the lawsuit.

The agency argued that Kansas law specifically prohibits it from disclosing any information from parolees’ supervision histories.

The Eagle maintained the open records law mandates the information be made public.

The court said the only information the department is not required to make public is the personal notes and opinions of parole officers. Criminal charges pending against parolees must be available for public review.

The case is Wichita Eagle and Beacon Publishing Company Inc., et al, v. Charles Simmons, No. 87,374.