Steven A. DeLoge' v. Desoto County Sheriff Department
230 So. 3d 1026
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Steven DeLoge, serving sentences in Wyoming for sexual abuse, requested under the Mississippi Public Records Act (MPRA) documents and evidence transferred from Wyoming to the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Department (DCSD) relating to the 1999 disappearance of Katherine Lowery.
- DCSD responded with an FBI inventory but refused further production, asserting the materials were investigative and exempt because the missing-person investigation remains open.
- The Mississippi Ethics Commission issued an opinion that the requested records were investigative reports and therefore exempt from disclosure under the MPRA.
- DeLoge sued in DeSoto County Chancery Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and de novo review of the Ethics Commission opinion; DCSD moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The chancery court conducted an in camera review of the boxes at DeLoge’s request, found the materials could be relevant to the ongoing investigation, and granted DCSD’s motion to dismiss.
- DeLoge appealed, raising (1) failure to convert the 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment before considering materials outside the pleadings, (2) error in granting dismissal, and (3) alleged constitutional violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery court erred by not converting the 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 summary-judgment when it considered materials during in camera review | DeLoge: court relied on evidence outside pleadings and should have converted to summary judgment and given 10 days’ notice or allowed discovery/amendment | DCSD: materials were referred to in the complaint and central to the claim; in camera review was proper without conversion | Court: No error — documents were central and referred to in the complaint; conversion unnecessary (Breeden principle) |
| Whether the chancery court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim because the records are exempt investigative reports under the MPRA | DeLoge: items are exculpatory, not investigative; needed for Wyoming appeal | DCSD: records are investigative, exempt under MPRA §25-61-12(2)(a) and §25-61-3(f); disclosure would harm an open investigation | Court: Affirmed dismissal — in camera factfinding showed materials could be relevant to open investigation and are properly characterized as investigative and exempt |
| Whether DeLoge’s constitutional rights were violated by DCSD’s retention of evidence or by chancery court procedure | DeLoge: retention and lack of presence at ruling violated rights (implied due process/confrontation concerns) | DCSD: state may retain seized property needed for investigation; this was a civil proceeding and Confrontation Clause not implicated | Court: No constitutional violation — state may maintain control of evidence during an ongoing investigation; Confrontation Clause inapplicable and no testimony taken |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington Cty. Bank v. Magee, 177 So. 3d 826 (Miss. 2015) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- City of Belmont v. Mississippi State Tax Comm’n, 860 So. 2d 289 (Miss. 2003) (Rule 12(b)(6) motion principles)
- Williams v. Mueller Copper Tube Co., 149 So. 3d 527 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (conversion to summary judgment required when considering matters outside pleadings)
- Breeden v. Buchanan, 164 So. 3d 1057 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (documents referred to in complaint and central to claim may be considered on 12(b)(6))
- Burgess v. Patterson, 188 So. 3d 537 (Miss. 2016) (review of mixed questions of law and fact)
- Kea v. Keys, 83 So. 3d 399 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (state authority to retain seized property while needed for investigation)
- Newman v. Stuart, 597 So. 2d 609 (Miss. 1992) (authority to maintain control of seized property)
- Hewes v. Langston, 853 So. 2d 1237 (Miss. 2003) (standard for reviewing factual findings vs. legal conclusions)