Rachal Laut, f/k/a Rachal Govro, and John M. Soellner v. City of Arnold
491 S.W.3d 191
Mo.2016Background
- In 2010 Plaintiffs Laut and Soellner requested under Missouri’s Sunshine Law an internal affairs investigative report and related records from the City of Arnold concerning alleged improper access to REJIS and related disciplinary matters.
- The city refused, treating most documents as personnel records closed under § 610.021 and withholding an internal affairs report; Plaintiffs sued seeking disclosure, statutory damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees.
- After interlocutory rulings and en‑camera review, the trial court ordered disclosure of the internal affairs report (with redactions) but later held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ claim for civil penalties and attorney’s fees under § 610.027 for a knowing or purposeful violation.
- At that hearing the city offered evidence it reasonably believed the records were personnel/disciplinary and relied on counsel; Plaintiffs argued the investigation was criminal in nature and the city knowingly/purposely violated the Sunshine Law by withholding the report.
- The trial court found the city violated the Sunshine Law (ordered disclosure) but concluded the withholding was neither knowing nor purposeful and denied penalties and fees; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “knowing” and “purposeful” under § 610.027 | "Knowing" requires only awareness of facts (i.e., knowing a record was requested and withheld); "purposeful" requires conscious plan to violate | City: penalties require proof of actual knowledge that withholding violated Sunshine Law; reliance on counsel and belief records were personnel justified withholding | Court: "knowing" requires actual knowledge that conduct violated Sunshine Law; "purposeful" requires conscious design/intent to violate (Spradlin standard). |
| Whether city’s withholding was "knowing" or "purposeful" | City’s characterization as personnel record was unreasonable; thus withholding was knowing/purposeful | City relied on attorney advice and genuine belief records were exempt; evidence supported that belief for most documents | Court: factual determination was for trial court; substantial evidence supported trial court’s findings that the violation was neither knowing nor purposeful; affirmed. |
| Entitlement to civil penalties and attorney’s fees under § 610.027 | Plaintiffs sought fees and penalties because of alleged knowing/purposeful violation | City argued no statutory predicate for penalties because no actual knowledge/intent to violate | Court: because Plaintiffs failed to prove the requisite mental state by preponderance, penalties and fees were not awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strake v. Robinwood West Cmty. Improvement Dist., 473 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. banc 2015) (defines "purposeful" violation and states a knowing violation requires actual knowledge that conduct violated statute)
- Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. banc 1998) (defines "purposely" as a conscious design, intent, or plan to violate the law with awareness of probable consequences)
- Guyer v. City of Kirkwood, 38 S.W.3d 412 (Mo. banc 2001) (investigative reports following citizen complaints of criminal conduct are presumptively open when investigation is inactive)
- White v. City of Ladue, 422 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses the requirement of actual knowledge for a "knowing" Sunshine Law violation)
- R.L. Polk & Co. v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 309 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (holds violation alone does not necessarily establish knowing or purposeful mental state)