MARIES COUNTY — Sheriff Mark Morgan was served a summons on March 26 to appear before Judge Ryan Jerome Helfrich in the 25th Maries County Circuit Court within 30 days of the receipt of the paperwork notifying him of a petition for declaratory judgment filed by retired sheriff Harold C. Heitman.

Deputy Coroner Amanda Sandbothe served the sheriff’s office paperwork notifying him of the alleged Sunshine Law violations.

Morgan has been ordered to file a pleading in response to Heitman’s petition, filed on March 19, which alleges Sunshine Law violations, requests a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, in camera review, civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs and other relief under the Missouri Sunshine Law.

According to the summons, Morgan is ordered to file his reply by April 25 with the court and provide a copy to Heitman.

Helfrich, of the Franklin County 20th Circuit Court, was assigned by the Supreme Court of Missouri to case 26MS-CC00023 in the matter of Harold C. Heitman vs. Mark Morgan on March 25.

The court approved a motion for the appointment of a special server to provide notice to Morgan that the case has been opened. Heitman paid a $75 fee to Maries County Deputy Coroner Amanda Sandbothe to serve the documents to Morgan.

In his request for a special process server, Heitman noted that the Maries County Sheriff’s Office would normally provide the service, but Morgan is the duly elected sheriff and the defendant in the case. He wrote that the coroner’s office is considered an appropriate neutral party. Since the coroner was out of town, the deputy coroner would do.

As of The Advocate’s deadline on March 30, Morgan had not responded to the summons or entered a plea in the case.

In Heitman’s original March 19 petition, he alleged four violations, including:

• Failure to provide a legally sufficient denial under State Statute 610.023, RSMo, with a specific statutory basis for withholding the records.

• Failure to segregate and produce nonexempt records as required by State Statute 610.024, RSMo, and instead issuing a blanket denial without conducting a meaningful review.

• Improperly withheld open records, including incident reports and arrest reports, and other responsive records or portions thereof that are not exempt from disclosure under Sunshine Law.

As a result, Heitman is requesting:

• Declaratory and injunctive relief as an “actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties. Heitman has “no adequate remedy at law” and “is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief” to enforce the rights granted under the Sunshine Law, including requiring a review, segregation, production and identification of the specific statutory basis for any withholding of records.

• In-Camera Review be conducted of any records withheld in whole or in part. Plaintiff further requests the court order the recorder of record submit all such withheld records under seal within 14 days of the courts order, together with a detailed index, filed under seal and identifying each withheld record or category of records, the specific statutory exemption claimed for each, and factual basis supporting each withholding. Heitman also requested that Morgan be required to certify, under penalty of perjury, that a reasonable and good-faith search for all records was conducted and that the court review the records to determine each exemption is properly applied. He further requests the court order the production of all nonexempt records, and reasonably segregable portions following such review.

• Heitman requests the court declare the sheriff’s office in violation of Chapter 610 of the revised state statutes; that the custodian of record not transfer custody, alter, destroy or dispose of the records, but preserve all records; order records be segregated; order an in-camera review; impose appropriate civil penalties; award costs, including court costs, service fees and reasonable attorney fees; order a written index be presented with specific exemptions for withholding records.