Bloomington Police Department v. Stone Belt, Inc. (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

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