PEOPLE'S LEGAL FRONT

IN THE 31^ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR

THE STATE OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF GREENE

Lee Allen Martin, plaintiff )

Pro Se )

V ) case #: 198CC4528

Brenda Cirtin )

Custodian of Records )

City of Springfield )

Robert Sommers, Attorney )

 

FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT

TO OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, pursuant to the "Sunshine Laws," RSMo 610.023, to ask the court for an order to compel the Defendant; Brenda Cirtin, Custodian of Records for the City of Springfield, to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the Springfield Police Department Policies and Procedures and /or Standard Operating Guidelines. Plaintiff requests these in electronic format pursuant to RSMo 610.029. In Support of his petition, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD was and still is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri.
2. Upon information and belief, that the plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, is a citizen of the State of Missouri.
3. Upon information and belief, the City of Springfield is a governmental body as defined by RSMo 610.010(4).
4. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, its agents, servants and employees operated, maintained and controlled the Police Department of the City of Springfield.
5. Upon information and belief, the Police Department for the City of Springfield is a governmental body as defined by RSMo 610.010(4).
6. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, its agents, servants, and employees operated, maintained and controlled the City Clerk’s Office of the City of Springfield as the Custodian of Records for the City of Springfield.
7. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on or prior to the 26^th day of October 1998, the defendant, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD employed City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, as Custodian of Records for the City of Springfield.
8. Upon information and belief, that the Standard Operating Guidelines of the Police Department of the City of Springfield are public governmental records as defined by RSMo 610.010.(6).
9. That notice of formal request for public documents pursuant to RSMo 610.023 was faxed and mailed to defendant, Brenda Cirtin, on the 26^th day of October, 1998 (attachment #1), stating the nature of the request and documents required to be viewed and/or reproduced in electronic format
10. That notice from City Attorney, Carl Yendes, concerning the above mentioned request dated October 26, 1998(attachment #1), effectively denies plaintiff’s request to view and receive copies of public documents. Plaintiff did receive a letter dated October 29, 1998 (Attachment #2) on the 30^th day of October at plaintiff’s address 309 North Jefferson Avenue, suite 220, Springfield, Missouri 65806.
11. That having been effectively denied access to public documents, and having complied with RSMo 610.023, plaintiff is left this recourse before the Circuit Court of the County of Greene, wherein said documents reside, pursuant to 610.023.4.
12. That not more than 30 days have elapsed since the formal request, pursuant to 610.023, and the denial of said request, pursuant to 610.023.4, by the defendants.
13. That this action is commenced within one year after the cause of action arose.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

14. The plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs marked 1 through 13 with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
15. Brenda Cirtin, Custodian of Records for the City of Springfield, did deny the plaintiff's request for public documents (attachment #1) in that the City of Springfield failed to make public documents available to the plaintiff.
16. Carl Yendes, Attorney for the City of Springfield, misrepresented the statutes of the State of Missouri in that the cost for these documents are not founded on the statutes of the State of Missouri, and there should be no cost to the plaintiff to redact public governmental records.
17. Carl Yendes, Attorney for the City of Springfield, states that the Standard Operating Guidelines for the Police Department for the City of Springfield "require review and redaction" before the public can view or receive the public governmental document. The Standard Operating Guidelines for the Springfield Police Department are not subject to redaction pursuant to Chapter 610 of the RSMo.
18. That Mr. Yendes' document dated October 29, 1998 (attachment #2) misquotes the statutes of the State of Missouri in that redaction of said public document pursuant to 610.100.3 does not apply. In subsequent conversation Mr. Yendes revealed his reliance on RSMo 610.100.5(3), which also does not apply.
19. That the document prepared by Mr. Yendes dated October 29, 1998 (attachment #2) misrepresents the statutes of the State of Missouri in that redaction of said public document pursuant to RSMo 610.100.5. (3) does not apply. The case of KATHLEEN COLOMBO v. MICHAEL BUFORD 935 S.W.2d 690 states: "provisions of §§ 610.100 to 610.115. *fn3 These sections pertain to arrest records only and do not include the violation alleged by appellants here. This argument of appellants simply has no merit."
20. Plaintiff's request never contemplated arrest records and arrest records were never requested. The use of the cited statute, RSMo 610.100.3, is of no force upon the plaintiff’s request.
21. That the document dated October 29, 1998 (attachment #2) misrepresents the statutes of the State of Missouri in that RSMo 610.026 only allows for the actual copy costs for the requested document.
22. RSM0 610.024 does not allow for the payment of City of Springfield personnel time by the plaintiff to redact such public document. RSMo 610.024 specifically states that all exempt and nonexempt materials shall be maintained separately.
23. That the document dated October 29, 1998 (attachment #2) request for $1,000.00 advanced deposit is not allowed for by the statute RSMo 610.026.2. The defendant notes in his response dated October 29, 1998 (attachment #2) that copy cost of $.25 per page for approximately 500 pages represents substantially less than the $1,000.00 deposit requested.
24. That the request by defendant for $1,000.00 deposit for a copy of the public document is in effect denying plaintiff’s request for access to the public document in violation of 610.026 RSMo. In the pamphlet published by the Attorney General Jay Nixon titled THE MISSOURI SUNSHINE LAW revised 1998 page 12 "if requested, the body must certify that the cost of search and duplication is fair and reasonable and does not exceed the cost incurred. The public governmental body may waive or reduce its fees when it is in the public interest to do so." (attachment #3)
25. The plaintiff notes that the City of Springfield, defendant, has failed to so certify the cost for providing the Standard Operating Guidelines for the Springfield Police Department.
26. That the defendant’s admission that the requested public document is in computer format (attachment #2) but has not made same available to the public in said format is contrary to RSMo 610.029, and 610.026.
27. The Plaintiff has a right to receive these records in electronic form pursuant to RSMo 610.026 and 610.029.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in that this honorable Court so Order the defendant, City of Springfield, to produce a standard computer formatted copy of the SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES and/or STANDARD OPERATING GUIDELINES, at the actual costs as prescribed in RSMo 610.026. Further, pursuant to 610.027.3 RSMo, that all costs and attorney’s fees are granted to the plaintiff in the amount of $500.00 dollars, and supplemental relief pursuant to RSMo 527.080 and any further orders as the court deems appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Lee Allen Martin

309 N Jefferson Ave., suite 220

Springfield, Mo. 65806

Phone #2

e-mail lee@ctyme.com

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lee Allen Martin, do hereby swear and affirm that one true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed, via prepaid first class mail, to Robert Sommers at the Busch Municipal Building 840 Boonville Springfield Missouri 65802 on this date 23rd day of March 1999.

So certified: _____________________________

Lee Allen Martin

 

 

 

[Forum] [EMail] [Index] [Home]

Self Help Law Library

Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.

We push the limits on discount hosting!