58 N.E.3d 995
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 16, 2015, David Heber was robbed; IMPD prepared an incident report and later charged a suspect. Heber received the incident report but sought additional records under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA).
- Heber submitted APRA requests to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) and the Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC) on June 26 and July 15, 2015; both were denied by the public access counselor for lack of reasonable particularity.
- Heber filed a complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor; the counselor issued an advisory opinion concluding the Appellees likely violated APRA by not timely responding and that the denials were not justified.
- After the advisory opinion, Appellees did not produce the requested records. Heber sued IMPD and OCC in state court on December 26, 2015, seeking records, fees, and penalties under APRA.
- Appellees moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing they could not be sued under APRA; the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, Appellees conceded the dismissal was incorrect in light of controlling precedent.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, remanded for further proceedings, and awarded appellate attorney fees to Heber, directing the trial court to calculate the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IMPD and OCC are subject to suit under APRA | Heber: APRA covers law enforcement agencies and municipal departments; therefore IMPD and OCC are suable public agencies | Appellees: They argued they are not entities subject to suit under APRA | Reversed: IMPD and OCC are public agencies under APRA and may be sued (following Lane-El) |
| Whether dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) was appropriate given precedent | Heber: Complaint plausibly states APRA claim; dismissal improper | Appellees: Motion claimed no APRA liability for these entities | Reversed: Dismissal improper; facts must be tested on remand |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded to plaintiff | Heber: Appellees' meritless dismissal forced appeal and delay; fees appropriate | Appellees: (conceded on appeal) dismissal should be reversed | Awarded: Court sua sponte granted appellate attorney fees and remanded to trial court to calculate amount |
| Whether advisory opinion requirement affects fee award | Heber: He obtained advisory opinion before filing suit, which supports fee entitlement if he substantially prevails | Appellees: Not argued successfully | Reserved/Procedural: Whether Heber will "substantially prevail" on merits remains undecided, but appellate fees awarded for the appeal itself |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane-El v. Spears, 13 N.E.3d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (held an Indianapolis police department is a "public agency" suable under APRA)
- Lockhart v. State, 38 N.E.3d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- In re Walter Penner Trust, 22 N.E.3d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses appellate attorney-fee awards under Appellate Rule 67)