Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Brown v. City of Columbus PD Merits Judgment

    Diunggah oleh

    Indiana Public Media News
    11 tayangan6 halaman
    The merits judgment entered in favor of former Columbus Mayor Kristen Brown by the court on June 17, 2019.

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    The merits judgment entered in favor of former Columbus Mayor Kristen Brown by the court on June 17, 2019.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    11 tayangan6 halaman

    Brown v. City of Columbus PD Merits Judgment

    Diunggah oleh

    Indiana Public Media News
    The merits judgment entered in favor of former Columbus Mayor Kristen Brown by the court on June 17, 2019.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 6
    ‘STATE OF INDIANA )___ INTHE BARTHOLOMEW SUPERIOR COURT 2 )ss: BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY) CAUSENO. 03D02-1702-PL-000970 KRISTEN S, BROWN, Plaintiff, CITY OF COLUMBUS, INDIANA, POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendant, ‘EINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On December 18, 2019, the parties submitted x Stipulation of Facts and a Stipulated Designation of Bvidence. inthis Orde, the Courts not going to restate the fact the parties have ready stipulated to, 1 14341 10-1 ‘The Indiara Acoess to Public Records Act (the “APRA") is codified at LC. § S- 10. The APRA “is intended to ensure Hoosiers have broad access to most government records.” Evansville Courier & Press v. Vanderburgh Co, Health Department, 17 NB.3492, 928 (od. 2014). 2 Section | ofthe APRA provides: A. fundamental philosophy of the Amedcan constitutional form of representative goverament is that government isthe Servant of the people and nottheir master, Accordingly itis the publi policy of th state ha al persons are entled to full and compete information regarding the afirs of government and he offical acts of those who represent them ax publi offells and employees Providing persons with th infomation isan essential fntion of « represenive government aad an integral pat of the routine duis of publi officials and employee, whase duty itis o provide the information, This chapter shall bp Uberlly construed 10 implement ths policy snd place the burden of proo forthe nondisclosure ofa pblic record onthe public agency ‘hat would deny acces othe recor and not onthe person seeking t ispect and copy te record. LO. § 5-14-31 (ormphasis ded), 3. Plaintiff Brown alleges Defendent CPD violated §§ 5-14-3-5(0)(3XC) and (D), ‘which provide as follows: (© This subsection does not apply toa private university police department, which is governed instead by subsection (d). An agency shall maintain a daly log or ‘record that lists suspected crimes, accidents, or complaints, and the following {information shall be made available for inspection and copying: (1 The time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency. (@) The time and nature of the agency's response to all complaints or requests for assistance, (@) Ifthe incident involves an alleged crime or infraction: (A) the time, date, and location of occurrence; () toe name and age of any victim, unless the victim i evitim of | crime under IC35-42-4 or 1C'35-42-3.5; (©) the factual circumstances surrounding the incident; and (D)2 general deseription of any injuries, property, or weapons volved. ‘The information required in this subsection shall be made available for inspection snd copying in compliance with this chapter, The record containing the information ‘ust be created not later than twenty-four (24) hours efter the suspected erie, aocident, or complaict has been reported tothe agency. LC. §5-14-3-5(6) (emphass added). 4. The Court find that tb information CPD initially provided to Brown pussvant to ‘her public records request inthe Public Incident Report contained insufficient “information” to ‘meet the requirements of Indiana Code 5-14-3-5(c)(3XC) and (D). Nothing in the Public Incident Report contains e descripton of the fitual circumstances surrounding the incident underlying CPD case number 16-06274, Merely listing “Criminal Mischiet/Vendalism” and “Domestic Disturbance” does not provide any factual circumstances. There was no general description of any injures, property, or weapons involved, The only reference to any injuies, property, or weapane 2 involved was other weapsn,” which is an nsf desertion; nor was there any description of the propery damage involved isthe incident. 5. "The Goarthus agrees with the Public Access Counselor thatthe CPD povided “Sneulicleat detail” to Beewa in response to ber pubic ecords request. In this reg, the Court oes at the 8 Court of Appeals, in Anderson x. Huntington County Board of Commissioners, 983 N.E2d 613, 618 (nd. Ct. App. 2013), stated that couris “should give considerable deference tothe opinions.of the Public Access Counselor.” 6, The Court agrees with the CPD that “investigatory records of law enforcement ‘gencies” are not required tobe disclosed under Seotion 5-14-3-4(bY(1) of the APRA. However, in this case, Plaintiff Brown did not request CPDs investigatory records. Rather, she specifically sought the information required tobe maintained and disclosed under Seotion 5-14-3-5(¢) of the APRA Section 5-14-3-5(o) is an exception tothe requirement that law enforcement investigatory records need not be disclosed, 7, Because Brown did not request CPD's investigatory records under Section S-14- 53.4(0), the burden is not on Brown to prove that CPD's denial ofher access to the information was “arbitrary and capricious” ander Section 9(g) ofthe APRA, LC. § 5-14-3-9(@). 8. The information sought by Brown existed at tho time of her request. This was revealed atthe November 7, 2017, hearing, and confirmed when CPD produced the Investigation Report and Reporting Officer Narstive following the Cout’s December 11, 2017, Order. CPD's denial that such information existed was, at worst, a dishonest statement, and at bes, an inaccurate one. Either way, the infomation existed and should have been provided to Browm when she requested tor at the very latest, after the Public Access Counselors recommendation. (Exh. 1E). 9. The Court thus finds that CPD's response to Brown's public records request Violated the APRA. 10, Section 9) ofthe APRA, LC §$-143-9), provides, “A person who bas been

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai