Basey v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Bureau of Investigations
408 P.3d 1173
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Kaleb Basey, subject of a joint AST/Fort Wainwright investigation, is a defendant in a federal criminal indictment and the plaintiff in a related federal civil rights suit against individual officers.
- In Sept. 2016 Basey requested from Alaska State Troopers (AST) records about his investigation, military search authorizations, and personnel/training/discipline records for two AST investigators named in his civil suit.
- AST denied the requests, citing AS 40.25.122 (litigation exception) and AS 40.25.120(a)(6)(A) (law‑enforcement interference exception); the Commissioner affirmed and directed Basey to obtain materials through court rules.
- Basey sued in superior court to compel disclosure; the superior court dismissed the complaint without a hearing, relying on the State’s motion to dismiss.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the State met its burden to show either statutory exception applied and found the State failed to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AS 40.25.122 (litigation exception) bars disclosure when requester is a party in litigation against state employees sued in their individual capacities | Basey: Exception applies only when requester is in litigation with a public agency; he sued individuals, not the State | State: Exception applies whenever requester is "involved in litigation" regardless of whether a public agency is a party | Held: AS 40.25.122 applies only to litigation involving a public agency; State failed to show such involvement, so exception does not bar disclosure |
| Whether AS 40.25.120(a)(6)(A) (records whose disclosure "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings") permits withholding simply because requester faces a pending federal prosecution | Basey: State must show disclosure would reasonably interfere; mere existence of prosecution insufficient | State: Disclosure may be declined because records are subject of pending criminal prosecution | Held: State did not present any evidence or adequate showing that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement; mere pendency of federal prosecution is insufficient — exception not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1998) (construing AS 40.25.122 and describing limitation to persons "involved in litigation with the State")
- Larson v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 284 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2012) (public records exceptions construed narrowly; State bears burden to prove nondisclosure)
- United States v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing Posse Comitatus Act and use of military search authorizations)