148 N.E.3d 996
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- Carroll County E911 (Dispatch Center) recorded multiple 9-1-1 calls after a November 2016 house fire in Flora that killed four children; the Indiana State Police and county authorities investigated the fire as a suspected arson.
- In June 2017 Fox 59 reporter Aishah Hasnie requested the 9-1-1 recordings under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA); the Dispatch Center refused, citing requests from the Carroll County Sheriff’s Department and Prosecutor to withhold the calls because of an ongoing investigation.
- The Indiana Public Access Counselor (PAC) issued a nonbinding advisory opinion directing disclosure; the Dispatch Center declined and Hasnie sued in Marion Superior Court under APRA; Fox 59 later sought substitution as real party in interest after Hasnie left the station.
- Detective Benjamin Rector submitted an affidavit stating the recordings contain nonpublic investigative details (witness identities, timing, background conversations) and that public release would harm the ongoing criminal investigation; local law enforcement had obtained copies and were using them in the investigation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Fox 59 and allowed substitution; the Court of Appeals stayed the order pending appeal and reviewed the APRA issue de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 9-1-1 calls are excepted from disclosure under APRA's investigatory-records exception | Fox 59: calls must be disclosed; Dispatch Center is not a law enforcement agency so the investigatory-records exception does not shield the recordings | Dispatch Center: local law enforcement compiled/controlled the calls during a criminal investigation, so the recordings are "investigatory records of law enforcement agencies" and may be withheld | Reversed trial court. Court of Appeals held the calls are investigatory records because county law enforcement compiled/controlled them for the criminal investigation; the exception applies and calls may be withheld from disclosure |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion allowing Fox 59 to substitute as the real party in interest | Fox 59: Hasnie requested the records as an agent of Fox 59; Fox 59 was the real party in interest from the start | Dispatch Center: only the person who made the APRA request has standing; substitution after Hasnie left was improper | Affirmed. Court held substitution was proper because Hasnie made the APRA request in the course of her employment and for Fox 59's benefit; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review guidance)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and burdens on movant/nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Gaudin, 42 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. 2015) (rules for statutory interpretation)
- Groth v. Pence, 67 N.E.3d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (PAC advisory opinions are nonbinding; courts may consider but need not defer)
- Lane-El v. Spears, 13 N.E.3d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (9-1-1 recordings can be investigatory records when compiled by law enforcement)
- Journal Gazette v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 698 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (exceptions to disclosure construed per legislative text)
- Althaus v. Evansville Courier Co., 615 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (autopsy records treated broadly as investigatory)
- Heltzel v. Thomas, 516 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (coroner investigative materials seen as investigatory records)
- Evansville Courier v. Prosecutor, Vanderburgh Cnty., 499 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (subpoenas distinguished from investigatory records)