Not only is the St. Louis Civilian Oversight Board failing to comply with the Missouri Sunshine Law but it’s also falling short of its mission to provide accountability and transparency into the alleged misconduct of St. Louis City police officers, according to a petition filed in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri accuses the oversight board of illegally redacting complaints of the names and badge numbers of police officers.
“The board has also improperly redacted information about individuals who filed these complaints,” ACLU Attorney Anthony E. Rothert wrote in the Dec. 22 complaint. “Plaintiff Phillip Weeks seeks immediate access to unredacted copies of these complaint forms in accordance with the Sunshine Law and the transparency the board purports to provide.”
The Attorney General's website states that the meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies are open to the public under the Sunshine Law.
“The Sunshine Law does not give carte blanche to shield bad actors from exposure and accountability,” Freedom Center of Missouri Litigation Director Dave Roland said. “It generally depends on the type of document. Personnel records are subject to closure under the Sunshine Law but it is possible to have the names of people who are named in complaints and other documents that are not themselves personnel records, in which case I would certainly agree they can't be redacted.”
A division of the Public Safety Department, the St. Louis City Civilian Oversight Board is an administrative and public governmental body that reviews and acts on complaints received from the public about the Police Department and its officers, according to a press release.
“If the allegation is that a complaint filed by a civilian constitutes a personnel record then I would definitely not agree that a complaint filed by a civilian constitutes a personnel record,” Roland told the St. Louis Record
In its joint civilian complaint forms, residents are permitted to report instances in which law enforcement officers employed excessive force, abused their authority, sexually harassed someone, was engaged in discourtesy or racial profiling, and used offensive language or slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identify, immigrant status or disability.
“Even though the Sunshine Law authorizes closure of personnel records, it doesn't require it and so, if the oversight site board wanted to share those names, it certainly could,” Roland said in an interview. “If they have attempted to close these records, then the question would be whether that closure is in fact authorized under the personnel records exception.”
The Missouri ACLU is asking the court to impose a civil penalty against the board and seeks judicial enforcement of the Sunshine Law.
“The civil penalty is triggered if the court finds that a violation of the sunshine law was knowing or purposeful and at this point, however, there are very few government officials who can legitimately claim to be ignorant of the Sunshine Law,” Roland said. “There's no longer any plausible deniability. Government officials know from the outset that if they don't comply with the Sunshine Law, they're very likely to get sued and they cannot claim ignorance that might otherwise allow them to escape the civil penalties that the law provides for.”