Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol
294 Neb. 842
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Todd Steckelberg, a Nebraska State Patrol trooper, applied for a lateral transfer to an Executive Protection Trooper position and was a finalist but was not selected.
- Steckelberg requested interview-related documents (score sheets, board comments/recommendations) and was initially denied; the State Patrol cited Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.05(15) in its initial refusal.
- Through counsel, Steckelberg filed a public-records request seeking the completed score sheets, notes, and recommendations; the Patrol later relied on § 84-712.05(7) (personal information in personnel records) to withhold the materials.
- Steckelberg sought a writ of mandamus in Lancaster County District Court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03; the district court reviewed the records in camera, found the materials exempt under § 84-712.05(7), and denied the petition.
- On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court Steckelberg argued (1) the Patrol should not be allowed to change the exemption relied upon (mend the hold), (2) the documents are public records that must be produced, and (3) he should have been allowed to inspect the records during the in camera review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it found no prejudice from the Patrol’s change of statutory ground, concluded the records contained personal information about personnel and were exempt under § 84-712.05(7), and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting access during the in camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Steckelberg's Argument | Nebraska State Patrol's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Patrol may rely on a different statutory exemption than it cited in its initial denial (mending the hold) | Patrol should be estopped from changing its legal basis; change is unfair and prejudicial | Change is permissible; district court reviews de novo so no prejudice shown | Court: No estoppel; no prejudice shown; change permitted |
| Whether the requested documents are public records such that Steckelberg met prima facie burden | Documents are public and thus must be produced | Documents are public but exempt under § 84-712.05(7) | Court: Steckelberg met prima facie burden; records are public but exemption controls |
| Whether the materials fall within § 84-712.05(7) or § 84-712.05(15) (i.e., personnel personal info vs. non-finalist application materials) | Materials better fit subsection (15) and thus should be disclosed for finalists; (15) protects only non-finalist application materials | Materials contain personal information about personnel and are exempt under subsection (7); (15) covers only defined job-application items and does not subsume (7) | Court: Materials are not "job application materials" as defined in (15) and are exempt as personal info under (7) |
| Whether Steckelberg should have been allowed to inspect records during the court's in camera review | He should be permitted to view records under § 84-712.03(2) to challenge redactions/meaning | Court’s discretion to limit in camera access; requester’s presence not necessary to decide question | Court: No abuse of discretion in not allowing Steckelberg to view records during in camera review |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Neb. Health Care Assn. v. Dept. of Health, 255 Neb. 784, 587 N.W.2d 100 (Neb. 1998) (discusses public-records access and prejudice for estoppel claims)
- Enterprise Co., Inc. v. Nettleton Business College, 186 Neb. 183, 181 N.W.2d 846 (Neb. 1970) (describes principle prohibiting a party from mending its hold)
- Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. (6 Otto) 258 (U.S. 1877) (historical origin of "mend one’s hold" doctrine)
- Evertson v. City of Kimball, 278 Neb. 1, 767 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 2009) (mandamus burden and public-records standards)
- Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148, 871 N.W.2d 776 (Neb. 2015) (appellate requirement that appellant present record supporting assigned errors)
- Harbor Ins. Co. v. Continental Bank Corp., 922 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1990) (useful for background on "mend one’s hold" terminology)