Bloomington Police Department v. Stone Belt, Inc. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 27, 2015
• Docket: 53A01-1411-MI-484
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Apr 27 2015, 9:22 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Patricia M. Mulvihill Lonnie D. Johnson City Attorney Samantha A. Salisbury Clendening, Johnson & Bohrer, P.C. Thomas D. Cameron Bloomington, Indiana Assistant City Attorney Bloomington, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE A. Scott Chinn Donald E. Morgan Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bloomington Police Department, April 27, 2015

Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 53A01-1411-MI-484 v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court

Stone Belt, Inc., The Honorable Elizabeth A. Cure, Judge Appellee-Petitioner. Cause No. 53C04-1410-MI-1836

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1411-MI-484 | April 27, 2015 Page 1 of 5 [1] Bloomington Police Department (“BPD”) appeals the trial court’s order that

directed BPD to provide un-redacted records to Stone Belt, Inc. in response to

Stone Belt’s public records request. Finding that the issue is moot and declining

to review the matter under the public interest exception, we dismiss the appeal

and vacate the trial court’s order.

[2] In response to Stone Belt’s public records request seeking “all types of

calls/crimes” within a specified date range involving a particular Stone Belt

client who had been exhibiting “extreme behavioral issues” at a Stone Belt

group home, BPD emailed Stone Belt a form letter stating that the request “is

denied” pursuant to Indiana Code section 5-14-3-4(b) of Indiana’s Access to

Public Records Act (“APRA”), which excepts from mandatory disclosure the

investigatory records of law enforcement agencies and provides that such

disclosure is “at the discretion” of the law enforcement agency. Appellant’s App.

at 34, 59. In addition to the letter, and pursuant to Indiana Code section 5-14-

3-5, which requires law enforcement agencies to make available for inspection

and copying daily logs that are maintained by the agency, BPD emailed Stone

Belt three redacted calls-for-service information reports (“CFS Reports”)

reflecting two runs to the Stone Belt facility. When, in accordance with its

department policy, BPD refused to provide un-redacted versions of the three

CFS Reports, Stone Belt filed with the trial court an Emergency Petition for

Authority to Subpoena Police Records, which the trial court granted. BPD

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1411-MI-484 | April 27, 2015 Page 2 of 5 filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied,1 and the trial court

further ordered BPD to release un-redacted copies of the records.2 After BPD

filed its appeal with this court, Stone Belt filed a Notice of Changed

Circumstances indicating that due to changed circumstances, it would not seek

to enforce the trial court’s order and would dismiss the underlying action once

the trial court reassumes jurisdiction of the case.

[3] The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a case is deemed moot when no

effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court. In re Lawrance,

579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991); Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. City of

Evansville, 955 N.E.2d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Generally,

when a dispositive issue in a case has been resolved in such a way as to render it

unnecessary to decide the question involved, the case will be dismissed. City of

Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 776; Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc. v. Durham, 748

N.E.2d 404, 410-11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (actual controversy must exist at all

stages of appellate review, and if case becomes moot at any stage, it is

remanded with instructions to dismiss). Nevertheless, we may decide an

arguably moot case on its merits if it involves questions of great public interest.

City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 776. “Typically, cases falling in the ‘great

1 According to the record before us, the trial court considered BPD’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Appellant’s App. at 4, 62 n.2. 2 At BPD’s request, the trial court’s November 17, 2014 order was stayed pending this appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1411-MI-484 | April 27, 2015 Page 3 of 5 public interest’ exception contain issues likely to recur.”3 In re Commitment of

J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

[4] In the case before us, BPD’s appeal was rendered moot upon Stone Belt’s

notification of changed circumstances, i.e., Stone Belt no longer needed the

records at issue, would not seek to enforce the trial court’s order, and intended

to dismiss the underlying action. Urging that the issue warrants our review

under the great public interest exception, BPD asks us to reach the merits of its

appeal and decide whether the trial court erred when it ordered BPD to produce

un-redacted investigatory records, despite BPD’s uniform policy that, pursuant

to the legislature’s grant of discretion to law enforcement agencies in Indiana

Code section 5-14-3-4(b), “[BPD] does not provide copies of investigatory

records, or evidentiary photographs and/or recordings.” Appellant’s App. at 34.

Given that many law enforcement and other public agencies across Indiana

have similar policies, the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and the

Indiana Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc., as Amicus Curiae, join BPD in its

position.

[5] We understand and appreciate BPD’s desire for a ruling, but we decline the

request to decide the present case on the merits, not necessarily because the

3 We note that some cases from our court have stated that an additional element is required to resolve a moot case on its merits: that the case must be likely to evade review; however, “Our Supreme Court has rejected the ‘additional element ... that the case must be likely to evade review.’” Bell v. State, 1 N.E.3d 190, 192 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 n.2 (Ind. 1991)).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1411-MI-484 | April 27, 2015 Page 4 of 5 matter lacks public import, but because of the posture of the appeal. To

preserve agency resources, Stone Belt has not filed an appellee’s brief, and, thus,

we are presented with only one side of the issue. Recognizing the potential

breadth and impact of any decision, we conclude that having only one view

presented to us does not provide a complete and full discussion of the respective

positions, nor an opportune case for decision, especially considering that it is

argued to be of great public interest. Accordingly, we dismiss BPD’s appeal as

moot and instruct the trial court to vacate its November 17, 2014 order.

[6] Dismissed, with instructions to the trial court.

Vaidik, CJ., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1411-MI-484 | April 27, 2015 Page 5 of 5