MARIES COUNTY — Retired Maries County Sheriff Harold (Chris) Heitman filed a “petition for declaratory and injunctive relief, in camera review, civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief under the Missouri Sunshine Law” petition on March 19 against duly elected Sheriff Mark Morgan’s office.

The seven-page document includes three counts of violations, a fourth count for declaratory and injunction relief, and a fifth count alleging a knowing and/or purposeful violation. Additionally, there was a request for an in-camera review.

Count 1 alleged violations of 610.023, RSMo, failure to provide a legally sufficient denial for records, and 610.021(14), failure to identify the separate records according to law, rendering the requested records closed.

Count 2 alleged violations of 610.024, RSMo, failure to segregate and produce nonexempt material as required, and instead issued an over broad and unlawful “blanket denial” without conducting a meaningful review.

Count 3 alleged violations of 610.100.2(1) and 610.100.3, RSMo, claiming the record holder improperly withheld open records, including incident reports and arrest reports, and other responsive records or portions that are not exempt from disclosure.

Count 4 requested declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging an actual and justiciable controversy exists between parties. Furthermore, alleging Heitman has no remedy at law and is entitled to a declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the rights granted by Chapter 610, RSMo, including requiring lawful review, segregation, production, and identification of the specific statutory basis for any records, including the particular law relied upon to withhold records.

Count 5 alleged a knowing and/or purposeful violation of Sunshine Law by the recorder of record for issuing a blanket denial to the records request.

A separate request for an in-camera review asks the court to conduct a review of any records withheld, in whole or in part, and the sheriff’s office submit all such withheld records under seal within 14 days of the court’s order, with a detailed index, and filed under seal identifying each record or category of records specific to the statute exemption, and factual support for each withholding.

Heitman alleges in court documents that Morgan, the recorder of record, violated Missouri Sunshine Law by denying access to public records. According to court documents, Heitman requested Morgan reconsider his stance on the records on March 18, Morgan said in a March 19 Maries County Commission meeting that his response follows the letter of the law.

According to court documents, Heitman is an “aggrieved person entitled to bring this action” pursuant to 610.027, RSMo, after having been denied public records on Feb. 25 when he submitted a written records request by email to Morgan.

“The written request was sent by email on Feb. 25, at approximately 1:50 p.m. Defendant’s written response was returned on Feb. 26, at approximately 11:17 a.m., less than 24 hours after receipt. The timing and substance of the response are indicative of a blanket, conclusory denial without individualized or meaningful review, as evidenced by the lack of any record-specific statutory analysis or differentiation between categories of records,” according to court documents.

Heitman’s request, which is available for review on Missouri Case.net, sought records for six months referencing specified individuals, including incident reports, offense reports, investigative reports, CAD logs, dispatch logs, communications, and related records.

The request also included MULES/NCIC query records, TransUnion and TLQxp access logs, billing records, invoices, and other administrative financial records relating to such systems, as well as other database access records maintained or accessible to the Maries County Sheriff’s Office, whether directly or through third-party vendors.

Heitman is alleging that the sheriff’s office is accessing his and other individuals’ personal information through law enforcement systems. The records he requested would identify the date, time and user associated with each access and assist in determining the nature, purpose and lawfulness, as well as who authorized it.

Heitman requested that the open portion of the records be provided to him, and the closed records include a citation with the reasons they are being withheld. He did not ask for records to be created, but to pull from only those being maintained by the office.

Court records from Heitman’s attorney allege Morgan:

• Issued a “blanket denial,” citing 610.100.2(2), active investigation, and 610.021.14, records protected from disclosure;

• Failed to provide a legally acceptable response, including failing to specifically identify the legal reasons for not providing requested records, as required 610.024, RSMo.

• Response makes no distinction between investigative records and administrative or financial records, including billing and vendor records, which are not subject to closure under 610.100, RSMo, demonstrating that no meaningful review or segregation analysis was performed.

Heitman added that not every responsive record must be disclosed in full, but that the recorder of record didn’t identify responsive records with specificity or the statutory basis for withholding records by statute.

In conclusion, Heitman requested that the court:

• Enter judgment in his favor that the sheriff’s office is in violation;

• Declare and enforce a preservation of records requested;

• Order the sheriff’s office to conduct a lawful review and produce all nonexempt records or properly redacted records within 14 days;

• Order compliance with records segregation requirements;

• An in-camera review of all withheld records;

• Impose appropriate civil penalties according to 610.027, RSMo:

• Award Heitman all costs, including court costs, service fees, witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees;

• Order the recorder of record, Morgan, to produce a written index or log identifying each withheld record or category of records, statutory exemption, factual basis supporting each withholding, sufficient to permit judicial review;

• Grant such other further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Maries County 25th Circuit Judge Zachary Armfield recused himself on March 20 from the case. An email has been sent to the Phelps County judge secretary, requesting a new judge be assigned.