By Lindsay Toler
By Chad Garrison
By Brett Koshkin
By RFT Staff
By Lindsay Toler
By Riverfront Times
By Danny Wicentowski
By Pete Kotz
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department has a new policy concerning public records: Let the sun shine on some.
The stance came to light this past week, when the Riverfront Timeswas denied access to sections of police reports that previously had been available under Missouri's open records statute, commonly known as the Sunshine Law. Meanwhile, a private citizen's lawsuit challenging another aspect of the police department's application of the Sunshine Law is making its way through the Missouri Court of Appeals. Attorneys say the outcome of that case will affect police agencies, media outlets and individuals across the state.
On April 14 the RFTrequested fourteen incident reports and one arrest record from the St. Louis police department. On April 25 Jane Berman Shaw, general counsel for the department's legal division, faxed the newspaper a letter indicating that the records had been readied for release (pending payment of a fee of $51.70). But there was a catch:
"You may notice a change in what is produced from prior responses of the police department," wrote Shaw. Specifically, Shaw stated, "(a) No longer is the more lengthy concluding narrative section produced, and (b) the addresses and phone numbers of victims, suspects and witnesses are not produced."
A month earlier the police department had provided an incident report including twelve pages of narrative. What prompted the sudden change of protocol?
"This is due to a recent mediation in which the Attorney General's Office, the Post-Dispatch and the Police Department participated and which included disputes as to exactly what should be included when an incident report is produced," wrote Shaw.
That came as news to Post-Dispatcheditor Ellen Soeteber, who expressed shock upon being informed that the police department's new policy was the result of a "mediation" with the office of Attorney General Jay Nixon.
"For them to claim that we're responsible for narrowing a request, I find insulting," Soeteber fumes.
Soeteber does, however, confirm that her paper and the police department have been feuding over the Sunshine Law since late last year.
In November a story by Postreporter Jeremy Kohler revealed that the police department had undercounted crimes in 2003, resulting in a misleadingly deflated crime rate. Following up on a tip that the undercount owed to the department's use of "crime memos" instead of incident reports in some cases, Kohler filed a Sunshine Law request for all crime memos written between June 2003 and June 2004.
"Ever since we went after those records, all this nonsense started," Soeteber says.
This isn't the first time the police department has holed up behind closed doors. For years the department has fought to deny access to internal-affairs files involving officers suspected of criminal conduct -- despite a 2001 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that states explicitly that such records are public. (For details, see Bruce Rushton's "Dirty Little Secrets" and a follow-up, "Cop Secret," in the February 11 and March 3, 2004 issues of the Riverfront Times.)
Now the Post, which had previously enjoyed unfettered access to crime reports, was suddenly faced with the prospect of paying sky-high fees for incomplete records.
There ensued a series of negotiations between Shaw and the Post's attorney, Joe Martineau of Lewis, Rice & Fingersh.
"At one point the police department was contending that any partof a crime report was not a public record. Do you believe that?" Soeteber recounts.
The Sunshine Law defines an "incident report" as "consisting of the date, time, specific location, name of the victim and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident...." An "investigative report," meanwhile, is "a record, other than an arrest or incident report, prepared by personnel of a law enforcement agency, inquiring into a crime or suspected crime, either in response to an incident report or in response to evidence developed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties."
If the Sunshine Law isn't clearly written, nor is it particularly liberal when it comes to which records it compels public agencies to cough up. First Amendment attorneys point out that the law's language lends itself to broad interpretation, and it's amply larded with exceptions. While incident and arrest reports are considered open records, there are exceptions for cases in which charges aren't filed or are dismissed, and for records involving defendants who have been found not guilty. Documents containing highly sensitive information may also be excluded. And investigative reports are generally considered closed records until the case is adjudicated.
The police department now maintains that the narrative sections of its incident reports contain information that would be defined under the statute as an "investigative report."
"Our position is that the police department should not be withholding any part of the incident report and that all parts are publicly available under the statute," counters Martineau.
Separately, Martineau and Shaw consulted the Attorney General's Office for guidance.
"Their opinion was that we've been giving out way more stuff than we had to," Shaw reports. "As a result we were incurring a lot of additional charges, reading the narratives and redacting the narratives. Their opinion is that that information is not required under the Sunshine Law, which makes our lives a whole lot easier."