American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation v. Missouri Department of Corrections
2016 WL 6871552
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- ACLU requested execution witness application records from Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) covering a 12‑month period; DOC deputy general counsel Matt Briesacher handled Sunshine requests.
- DOC produced heavily redacted records (redacting contact, employment, SSNs, criminal history); DOC cited §610.035 for SSNs and §610.021(14) ("protected from disclosure by law") plus a privacy rationale for other redactions.
- ACLU sued to compel disclosure (except SSNs) and alleged DOC knowingly violated the Sunshine Law; additional unredacted records were produced two days before trial.
- Trial court found DOC violated the Sunshine Law and, weighing credibility, concluded the violation was "knowing," imposing a $500 fine and awarding $5,145 in fees and costs.
- On appeal DOC did not contest the violation but challenged the trial court’s finding that the violation was "knowing," arguing the court applied a strict liability standard and that evidence was insufficient.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: §610.027 requires a knowing (not strict liability) violation; substantial evidence supported the trial court’s credibility‑based finding that DOC’s redactions were a knowing violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §610.027 requires a knowing violation (vs. strict liability) to impose penalties and award fees | ACLU: trial court correctly required proof DOC knowingly violated Sunshine Law to impose penalty/fees | DOC: trial court imposed penalty as if mere failure to produce was sufficient (strict liability) | Held: §610.027 requires a knowing violation; trial court applied correct standard, not strict liability |
| Whether there was substantial evidence to find DOC’s violation was knowing | ACLU: credibility findings and timing of late unredactions support knowing violation | DOC: Briesacher’s testimony that he didn’t know his actions violated the law shows lack of knowing intent | Held: Substantial evidence supports trial court’s credibility determinations and finding of a knowing violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Strake v. Robinwood West Cmty. Improvement Dist., 473 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. banc 2015) (§610.027 requires proof the entity knew its nonproduction violated Sunshine Law)
- Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. banc 1998) (definition of "purposeful" violation requires conscious design or intent)
- State v. Selman, 433 S.W.2d 572 (Mo. 1968) (intent is a factual question)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for factual findings)
- Laut v. City of Arnold, 491 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. banc 2016) (section 610.027 does not impose strict liability; appellate deference to trial court credibility)
- R.L. Polk & Co. v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 309 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. App. 2010) (evidence can support no purposeful violation)
- State ex rel. Mo. Local Gov’t Ret. Sys. v. Bill, 935 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (§610.021(14) "law" means statutes; exemptions strictly construed)
- Oregon Cty. R‑IV Sch. Dist. v. LeMon, 739 S.W.2d 553 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987) (public records presumed open absent statutory exemption)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily provided to third parties)