PEOPLE'S LEGAL FRONT

IN THE 31^ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR

THE STATE OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF GREENE

Lee Allen Martin, plaintiff                                          )

Pro Se                                           & nbsp;                             )

            V                                           &n bsp;                         )                 case #:_____________

Brenda Cirtin                                          &nb sp;                  )

Custodian of Records                                          &n bsp;        )

City of Springfield                                         &nbs p;               )

Police Chief Lynn Rowe                                            ;  )

Springfield Police Department                                       )

City of Springfield, defendants                                    )

Carl Yendes, City Attorney                                           )

PETITION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT TO VIEW POLICE POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUALS

The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, respectfully shows to this Court and alleges:

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 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 including all the police officers thereof.
3. 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.
4. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on or prior to the 26^th day of October 1998, City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, was employed by the defendant, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, as Custodian of Records for the City of Springfield.
5. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on or prior to the 26^th day of October, 1998, Police Chief Lynn Rowe, was employed by the defendant, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, as Police Chief for the City of Springfield.
6. 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, stating the nature of the request and documents wished to be viewed and/or reproduced in electronic format.
7. That notice from City Attorney, Carl Yendes, concerning the above mentioned letter dated October 26, 1998, effectively denying plaintiff’s request to view and receive computer formatted copies of public documents, was received in letter dated October 29, 1998 on the 30^th day of October at plaintiff’s address 309 North Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri 65806-1108.
8. 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, where the said documents reside, pursuant to 610.023.4.
9. 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.
10. 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
11. The plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs marked 1 through 10 with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
12. That the document dated October 29, 1998 misquotes the statutes of the State of Missouri in that redaction of said public document pursuant to 610.100.3 does not apply because defendant wishes to invoke RSMo 610.100.5(3).
13. That the document dated October 29, 1998 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, "§ 610.030 is limited to enforcement of the "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." Arrest records were never requested and the use of the above-cited statute is of no force upon the plaintiff’s request.
14. That the document dated October 29, 1998 misrepresents the statutes of the State of Missouri in that RSMo 610.026 only allows for the copy costs for the requested document and does not allow for the payment of City of Springfield personnel time to be paid for by the plaintiff to redact such public document.
15. That the document dated October 29, 1998 request for $1,000.00 advanced deposit to comply with the plaintiff’s request for public document is not allowed for by the statute RSMo 610.026.2. The defendant notes in his response dated October 29, 1998 that copy cost of $.25 per page and therefore substantially less than the $1,000.00 deposit requested.
16. 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.
17. That the defendant’s admission that the requested public document is in computer format but has not made same available to the public in said format and this is contrary to RSMo 610.029, and 610.026.

        Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in that this honorable Court so Order the defendant, City of Springfield, to produce a computer formatted copy of the SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING GUIDELINE, at the costs prescribed in RSMo 610.026 the cost of copying and the time it takes for department personnel to copy said document. 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 relief pursuant to RSMo 527.080. Plaintiff also requests that a copy of the policy and procedures for the Springfield Police Department be presented to the plaintiff in the standard computer format with the fee to be set by the statutes of the State of Missouri.

Respectfully Submitted,

 
 

Lee Allen Martin

309 N Jefferson Ave.

Springfield, Mo. 65806-1108

Phone #

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 Carl Yendes Busch Municipal Building 840 Boonville Springfield Missouri 65802 on this date 2^nd day of November 1998.

So certified: _____________________________

                                Lee Allen Martin
 
 

NOTICE OF HEARING

        The foregoing petition will be called before the Court for hearing on December16, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Petitioner may be heard.

______________________________

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!