558 S.W.3d 70
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Curtis Farber filed a citizen complaint alleging that St. Louis police officers assaulted him and threatened to falsify evidence during his July 9, 2011 arrest; he later pled guilty and received probation.
- The Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD) completed an investigation in Sept. 2013, found the complaint “not sustained,” and took no discipline; Farber requested the unredacted IAD report under Missouri’s Sunshine Law in Nov. 2015 (and again in March 2016).
- The Police Department refused to disclose the IAD report, asserting it was a closed personnel/disciplinary record; it provided limited materials (e.g., EMR) but withheld ARTS and other IAD records.
- Farber sued under the Sunshine Law; after a bench trial the court ordered disclosure of some materials (e.g., photographs, supplemental arrest records) but upheld closure of records the court deemed personnel/disciplinary records (correspondence notifying Farber, ARTS report, investigative information, officer statements, inter-office memoranda, victim personal data).
- The court applied §§ 610.021(3) & (13) (permissive closure for personnel/disciplinary records) and concluded the contested IAD records were not "investigative reports" under § 610.100.1(5) because the IAD investigation was internal only once Farber signed the EMR.
- On appeal Farber argued the Guyer presumption should render these records open as investigative reports into alleged criminal conduct; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the presumption rebutted by testimony that the investigation was exclusively disciplinary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IAD records are "investigative reports" (open) under § 610.100.1(5) because they inquire into a crime | Farber: The citizen complaint alleged criminal conduct by officers, so Guyer presumption makes IAD records investigative reports subject to disclosure | Police Dept.: Preliminary review found no basis for criminal inquiry; after Farber signed the EMR the investigation was exclusively internal/disciplinary, so records are personnel/disciplinary and may be closed under §§ 610.021(3),(13) | Court: Held records were generated for disciplinary purposes after EMR; Guyer presumption rebutted; records may be closed as personnel/disciplinary records |
Key Cases Cited
- Guyer v. City of Kirkwood, 38 S.W.3d 412 (Mo. banc) (presumption that internal affairs reports tied to alleged criminal conduct are open)
- Laut v. City of Arnold, 417 S.W.3d 315 (Mo.App.E.D.) (Guyer presumption may be rebutted when record shows internal report did not inquire into a crime)
- State ex rel. Daly v. Info. Tech. Servs. Agency, 417 S.W.3d 804 (Mo.App.E.D.) (standard of review for bench-tried declaratory judgment cases)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc) (standard for appellate review of bench-tried cases)
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (Garrity rights separate internal disciplinary interviews from criminal use of compelled statements)