1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUDRAIN COUNTY TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI SHOW-ME CANNABIS REGULATION, INC., ) a Missouri nonprofit corporation; and AARON ) M. MALIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) EAST CENTRAL MISSOURI TASK FORCE ) EXECUTIVE BOARD; STUART MILLER, in his ) official capacity as the Chair of the East ) Central Missouri Task Force Executive Board; ) ROBERT DAVIS, in his official capacity as a ) member of the East Central Missouri Task ) Force Executive Board; KEVIN HARRISON, in ) his official capacity as a member of the East ) Central Missouri Task Force Executive Board; ) GREG HOUDYSHEL, in his official capacity as a ) member of the East Central Missouri Task ) Force Executive Board; SUSAN ROCKETT, in ) her official capacity as a member of the East ) Central Missouri Task Force Executive Board; ) DON NACKE, in his official capacity as a ) member of the East Central Missouri Task ) Force Executive Board; DAVID ONEY, in his ) official capacity as a member of the East ) Central Missouri Task Force Executive Board; ) PHILIP AHERN, in his official capacity as a ) member of the East Central Missouri Task ) Force Executive Board; and MATTHEW OLLER, ) in his official capacity as a Lieutenant in the ) Audrain County Sheriff’s Department. ) ) Defendants. ) ) SERVE: Stuart D. Miller ) Chairman, ECM Task Force ) Audrain County Sheriff’s Office ) 1100 Littleby Road ) Mexico, MO 65265
Case No. _________________
Division ___
PETITION SMC Petition 1
1
1. This action is brought pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine Law, Chapter 610 of the
2
Missouri Revised statutes, which requires public governmental bodies to allow citizens to attend, 3 4
observe, and record official meetings.
5
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to § 610.027.1, RSMo., because the
6
public governmental body being sued has its principal place of business in Audrain County and
7
the events at issue in this lawsuit took place in Audrain County.
8
3. This Court has jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce provisions of the Sunshine Law
9 10
pursuant to § 610.030, RSMo. 4. Venue for this action is proper in this Court because the principal place of business of the
11 12
East Central Missouri Task Force is in Audrain County.
13
Parties
14 15
5.
Plaintiff Show-Me Cannabis Regulation, Inc., (“Show-Me Cannabis”) is a Missouri
16
nonprofit corporation that seeks to improve upon the current, failing drug policies by engaging
17
the public in conversation about the negative consequences of the drug war and offering well-
18
researched, common-sense policy alternatives.
19
6.
Plaintiff Aaron M. Malin (“Malin”) is a resident of the State of Missouri and the director
20 21
of research for Show-Me Cannabis. Defendant, East Central Missouri Task Force (“the Task Force”), is a multi-jurisdictional
22
7.
23
enforcement group organized under the authority of § 195.505.1, RSMo.
24
8.
Defendant Stuart Miller is the Sheriff of Audrain County, Missouri, the Chair of the Task
25
Force’s Executive Board, and the Project Director for the Task Force. 26 27
9.
Defendant Robert Davis is the Sheriff of Montgomery County, Missouri, and a member
28
of the Task Force’s Executive Board. SMC Petition 2
1
10.
Defendant Kevin Harrison is the Sheriff of Warren County, Missouri, and a member of
2
the Task Force’s Executive Board.
3
11.
4
member of the Task Force’s Executive Board.
Defendant Greg Houdyshel is Chief of the Warrenton, Missouri, Police Department and a
5
12.
Defendant Susan Rockett Chief of the Mexico, Missouri, Police Department and a
6 7
member of the Task Force’s Executive Board.
8
13.
9
member of the Task Force’s Executive Board.
10
14.
Defendant Don Nacke is Chief of the Bowling Green, Missouri, Police Department and a
Defendant David Oney is a Captain of the Bowling Green, Missouri, Police Department
11 12
and a member of the Task Force’s Executive Board.
13
15.
14
Secretary of the Task Force’s Executive Board.
15
16.
Defendant Philip Ahern is Chief of the Montgomery City Police Department and is
Defendant Matthew Oller is a Lieutenant in the Audrain County Sheriff’s Department.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SMC Petition 3
The Sunshine Law
1
Chapter 610, RSMo., contains statutes requiring — with a few specified limitations —
2
17.
3
that the meetings, records, and votes of all public bodies must be open to the public; this set of
4
statutes is commonly referred to as the “Sunshine Law.”
5
18.
Section 610.010(4), RSMo., in relevant part, defines “Public governmental body” as:
6
[A]ny legislative, administrative, or governmental entity created … by order or ordinance of any political subdivision or district… including…:
7 8
(c) Any department or division of the state, of any political subdivision of the state, of any county or of any municipal government[;]…
9 10
(e) Any committee appointed by or at the direction of any of the entities and which is authorized to report to any of the above-named entities, any advisory committee appointed by or at the direction of any of the named entities for the specific purpose of recommending, directly to the public governmental body’s governing board or its chief administrative officer, policy or policy revisions or expenditures of public funds[.]
11 12 13 14 15
19.
Section 610.010(6), RSMo., defines “Public meeting” as: [A]ny meeting of a public governmental body subject to sections 610.010 to 610.030 at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy formulated, whether such meeting is conducted in person or by means of communication equipment, including, but not limited to, conference call, video conference, internet chat, or internet message board…
16 17 18 19
20.
Section 610.010(3), RSMo., defines “Public business” as “all matters which relate in any
20 21
way to the performance of the public governmental body’s functions or the conduct of its
22
business[.]”
23
21.
24 25 26 27
Section 610.011, RSMo., declares: 1. It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy. [emphasis added]
28
SMC Petition 4
2. Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.
1 2 3 4 5
22.
6
liberty to infer exceptions to this rule; the only permissible exceptions are those established by
7
Put more simply, transparency is the rule for public entities in Missouri. Courts are not at
statute and courts are instructed to construe those exceptions strictly in order to preserve the rule
8 9
of transparency. Section 610.027.1, RSMo., states that “[a]ny aggrieved person, taxpayer to, or citizen of,
10
23.
11
this state… may seek judicial enforcement of the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026.”
12
24.
13
Section 610.027.2, RSMo., states that once a party bringing suit under the Sunshine Law
has demonstrated to the court “that the body in question is subject to the requirements of sections
14 15
610.010 to 610.026 and has held a closed meeting, record, or vote, the burden of persuasion will
16
be on the body and its members to demonstrate compliance” with the Sunshine Law. [emphasis
17
added]
18
25.
Section 610.027.3, RSMo., states:
19
Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body has knowingly violated sections 610.010 to 610.026, the public governmental body or the member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount of up to one thousand dollars. If the court finds that there is a knowing violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, the court may order the payment by such body or member of all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing a violation. The court shall determine the amount of the penalty by taking into account the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and whether the public governmental body or member of a public governmental body has violated sections 610.010 to 610.026 previously.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26.
Section 610.027.4, RSMo., states:
28
SMC Petition 5
Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body has purposely violated sections 610.010 to 610.026, the public governmental body or the member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to five thousand dollars. If the court finds that there was a purposeful violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, then the court shall order the payment by such body or member of all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing such a violation. The court shall determine the amount of the penalty by taking into account the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and whether the public governmental body or member of a public governmental body has violated sections 610.010 to 610.026 previously.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Factual Allegations
8 9 10
27.
Upon information and belief, the Executive Board of the Task Force (“the Executive
Board”) is organized pursuant to orders or ordinances of political subdivisions of the state in
11 12
accordance with § 195.509.2(2), RSMo.
13
28.
14
orders or ordinances of political subdivisions or districts of the state; as such, it is a public
15
The Task Force is a governmental entity created by the statutes of this state and/or by
governmental body within the definition of § 610.010(4), RSMo.
16
29.
The Executive Board comprises Sheriff Stuart Miller (“Miller”) of the Audrain County
17 18
Sheriff’s Department; Sheriff Robert Davis of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department;
19
Sheriff Kevin Harrison of the Warren County Sheriff’s Department; Chief Greg Houdyshel of
20
the Warrenton Police Department; Chief Susan Rockett of the Mexico Police Department; Chief
21
Don Nacke and Captain David Oney of the Bowling Green Police Department; and Chief Philip
22
Ahern of the Montgomery City Police Department. 23
30.
Miller has been the Chairman of the Executive Board since at least January 12, 2012.
25
31.
On October 6, 2014, Malin sent a Sunshine Law request to Miller, directed to the
26
attention of “Custodian of Records for the East Central Drug Task Force,” seeking grant reports
24
27 28
SMC Petition 6
1
and quarterly status reports the Task Force had filed with the Missouri Department of Public
2
Safety. A copy of this letter is attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.
3
32.
4
On October 9, 2014, Miller sent Malin a letter that read in relevant part: “I am not for sure who would officially be charged as the Custodian of Records, I serve on the Board of Directors for the task force; however, our task force is managed by the Missouri State Highway Patrol.”
5 6
A copy of this letter is attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2.
7 8
33.
9
the Task Force’s Executive Board.
10
34.
Upon information and belief, no representatives of the Missouri Highway Patrol serve on
Upon information and belief, the Task Force has not appointed a custodian to be
11 12
responsible for the maintenance of the Task Force’s records.
13
35.
14
attention of the Custodian of Records for the East Central Drug Task Force, requesting minutes
15
On November 11, 2014, Malin sent a Sunshine Law request to Miller, designated for the
of Executive Board meetings held between January 1, 2013, and November 11, 2014.
16
36.
On November 18, 2014, Miller responded that he would comply with Malin’s request,
17 18
although he would charge Malin $15.08 for one half-hour’s worth of labor and $1.60 for 16
19
pages worth of copies.
20
37.
21
The hourly rate Miller charged on November 18, 2014, for locating and copying minutes
of Executive Board meetings is the equivalent of $30.16 per hour.
22
38.
On January 5, 2015, Malin sent an email to Miller, marked for the attention of the
23 24 25
Custodian of Records, containing a Sunshine Law request for minutes of Executive Board meetings held between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014.
26 27 28
SMC Petition 7
1
39.
On January 8, 2015, Miller sent an email indicating that he would comply with Malin’s
2
request, although he would charge Malin $22.62 for 1.25 hours of labor and $2.40 for 24 pages
3
worth of copies.
4
40.
The hourly rate Miller charged on January 8, 2015, for locating and copying minutes of
5
Executive Board meetings is the equivalent of $18.10 per hour. 6 7
41.
The Executive Board held a meeting on November 6, 2014, at which it was announced
8
that “[t]he next regular Executive Board Meeting” would be held on Thursday, January 29, 2015,
9
at the Audrain County Sheriff’s Office and that “[n]ominations for Executive Board Officers
10
[would] be entertained at the next meeting.”
11 12
42.
Malin had obtained the minutes of the November 6, 2014, meeting via one of his
13
Sunshine Law requests, and on Thursday, January 29, 2015, Malin and a colleague went to the
14
Audrain County Sheriff’s Office and asked to observe the Executive Board’s meeting.
15
43.
Malin was allowed to exit the lobby of the Sheriff’s Office Building into what appeared
16
to be a reception area. He told the person sitting behind a desk that he was there to attend the 17 18
Executive Board meeting. An unknown officer immediately asked, “Who are you with?” Malin responded that he
19
44.
20
was with Show-Me Cannabis Regulation. The unknown officer said, “Okay, let me bring the
21
sheriff to you.”
22
45.
Malin then asked, “It shouldn’t matter, right?” The unknown officer said, “That’s not up
23 24
to me.”
25
46.
26
would be with him in a minute. During that time he heard someone down the hall say, “He said
27
Malin then waited several minutes, occasionally receiving assurances that someone
he’s with Show-Me Cannabis Regulation, I’m sure he’s recording.”
28
SMC Petition 8
1
47.
Shortly thereafter, an officer who later gave Malin a card identifying himself as
2
Lieutenant Matthew W. Oller (“Oller”) approached Malin and without introducing himself said,
3
“This meeting’s not a public meeting, so you guys need to leave.”
4
48.
When informed that the Executive Board’s meetings are required by law to be public
5
unless the Executive Board follows the procedures established in the Sunshine Law to close 6 7
meetings, Oller merely said, “See you guys later. It’s not an open meeting. See you later.”
8
49.
9
Law, Oller said, “You need to leave, man. I’m not going to ask you again.”
10
50.
Malin continued to press, pointing out that the Executive Board is subject to the Sunshine
As Malin and his colleague considered what to do, Oller added, “I just talked to them.
11 12
They said it’s not an open meeting.” When asked if a vote was taken to close the meeting, Oller replied, “I’m not a member of
13
51.
14
the board. I’ll have somebody call you. Leave your number and you can discuss it with them.”
15 16
52.
Malin told Oller that there would likely be statutory liability for those responsible for
violating the Sunshine Law and Oller responded, “That’s fine. See you later.”
17 18
53.
When asked who told him that the meeting was closed, Oller said, “The board. See you
19
later. All of them. See you later.”
20
54.
21
fast do you think we can get this filed?” Oller interjected, “I bet not before the meeting’s over.”
22
55.
As Malin and his colleague were beginning to leave, Malin asked his colleague, “How
Malin’s colleague replied, “That’s true, but you guys are going to face a penalty for it.”
23 24
Oller responded, “That’s fine!”
25
56.
Oller then insisted that Malin had no option but to leave, claiming that Malin was in a
26
“restricted area.”
27 28
SMC Petition 9
1
57.
On January 30, 2015, Malin sent a Sunshine Law request to Miller requesting the minutes
2
from the Task Force Executive Board’s January 29, 2015, meeting.
3
58.
4
On February 4, 2015, Miller sent a letter indicating that he would comply with Malin’s
request, although he would charge Malin $15.38 for one half-hour of labor and $.40 for 4 pages
5
worth of copies. 6 7
59.
The hourly rate Miller charged on February 4, 2015, for locating and copying minutes of
8
an Executive Board meeting is the equivalent of $30.62 per hour.
9
60.
10
Upon information and belief, it did not take Miller one half-hour to locate and copy four
pages’ worth of minutes from a meeting that took place just days prior to the request.
11 12 13
61.
By agreeing to produce the minutes, Miller confirmed that the January 29, 2015, meeting
was, in fact, an open public meeting, not a closed meeting.
14 15
Violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law 62.
Defendant Task Force is subject to the provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law because
16
it is a public governmental body. 17 18
63.
Defendants Miller, Davis, Harrison, Houdyshel, Rockett, Nacke, Oney, and Ahern are
19
each subject to the provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law because they comprise the
20
Executive Board of the Task Force and are responsible for complying with §§ 610.015 to
21
610.022, RSMo.
22
64.
Defendant Oller is subject to the provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law because he is
23 24
an employee of a government body and in denying Malin access to the Eastern Central Missouri
25
Task Force Executive Board meeting that took place on January 29, 2015, Oller was acting at the
26
behest and as the agent of the Executive Board.
27 28
SMC Petition 10
1
65.
Section 610.023.1, RSMo., requires each public governmental body to appoint a
2
custodian to be responsible for the maintenance of that body’s records.
3
66.
4
Failing to appoint a custodian of records is a serious violation of the Sunshine Law
because, in the absence of such a custodian, it is not only unclear to whom members of the public
5
should direct their Sunshine Law requests, but there is the additional concern that the public 6 7
governmental body’s records will be mishandled, misplaced or destroyed because their legal
8
significance is not recognized. The absence of a designated custodian may also drastically
9
increase the cost to citizens of obtaining public records due to the additional time an impromptu
10
custodian will have to spend in their effort to locate requested records, relative to an official
11 12
custodian familiar with the process.
13
67.
14
records for the Task Force or the Executive Board.
15
68.
The Defendants have violated § 610.023.1, RSMo., by failing to designate a custodian of
The Missouri Sunshine Law defines “public meeting” as “any meeting of a public
16
governmental body subject to sections 610.010 to 610.030 at which any public business is 17 18
discussed, decided, or public policy formulated[.]” § 610.010(5), RSMo. “Public business encompasses those matters over which the public governmental body
19
69.
20
has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” Kansas City Star v. Fulson, 859
21
S.W.2d 934, 940 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993).
22
70.
Upon information and belief, a quorum of the Executive Board was present at the January
23 24
29, 2015, meeting.
25
71.
26
business or formulated public policy at its January 29, 2015, meeting; the meeting was a “public
27
Upon information and belief, the Executive Board discussed and/or decided public
meeting” within the definition of § 610.010(5), RSMo.
28
SMC Petition 11
1
72.
The Missouri Sunshine Law states that public governmental bodies must give notice of
2
the time, date, and place of each meeting and its tentative agenda in a manner reasonably
3
calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered, and that such notice must
4
generally be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting. § 610.020, RSMo.
5
73.
Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants gave any public notice at all of the
6 7
January 29, 2015, meeting, nor did they publicly post any agenda for that meeting. The Missouri Sunshine Law requires meetings to be held “at a place reasonably
8
74.
9
accessible to the public and of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated attendance by
10
members of the public.” § 610.020.2, RSMo.
11 12
75.
The Task Force’s Executive Board held the January 29, 2015, meeting in a part of the
13
Audrain County Sheriff’s Office that, according to Defendant Oller, was a “restricted area.”
14
76.
15
of meetings “by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means[.]” § 610.020.3, RSMo.
The Missouri Sunshine Law requires public governmental bodies to allow the recording
16
77.
Upon information and belief, the Executive Board was aware that Malin intended to
17 18
exercise his right to record the meeting of January 29, 2015, and decided to exclude Malin from
19
the meeting in part because they knew he intended to exercise his statutory right to record the
20
meeting.
21 22
78.
The Missouri Sunshine Law states that the public policy of this state is for meetings,
votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies to be open to the public “unless
23 24
otherwise provided by law,” and that “[s]ections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed
25
and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.” § 610.011.1, RSMo.
26
79.
27
“Except as provided in section 610.020, all public meetings of public governmental
bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes
28
SMC Petition 12
1
of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.” § 610.011.2,
2
RSMo.
3
80.
4
Despite the clear, unambiguous requirements of the Missouri Sunshine Law, the
Defendants purposely excluded Malin from the Executive Board meeting of January 29, 2015.
5
81.
The Missouri Sunshine Law allows public governmental bodies to close meetings under
6 7
certain enumerated and limited circumstances, but in order to do so lawfully there must be “an
8
affirmative public vote of the majority of a quorum of the public governmental body,” and “the
9
vote of each member of the public governmental body on the question of closing a public
10
meeting… and the specific reason for closing that public meeting… by reference to a specific
11 12
section of [the Missouri Sunshine Law] shall be announced publicly… and entered into the
13
minutes.” § 610.022.1, RSMo.
14
82.
15 16
Upon information and belief, prior to the decision to exclude Malin from the meeting
none of the Defendants voted on the question of whether the January 29, 2015, meeting would be “closed,” and prior to the decision to exclude Malin from the meeting there was no discussion
17 18
among the Defendants as to “the specific reason for closing that public meeting” that referred to
19
a specific section of the Missouri Sunshine Law.
20
83.
21
governmental body, stating that “[a]ny meeting or vote closed pursuant to section 610.021 shall
The Missouri Sunshine Law generally prohibits closing an entire meeting of a public
22
be closed only to the extent necessary for the specific reason announced to justify the closed 23 24
meeting or vote.” § 610.022.3, RSMo. The Missouri Sunshine Law also forbids public governmental bodies to “discuss any
25
84.
26
business in a closed meeting… which does not directly relate to the specific reason announced to
27
justify the closed meeting[.]” If part of a public meeting is to be “closed,” the public
28
SMC Petition 13
1
governmental body must allow members of the public to attend any subsequent open session
2
held by the public governmental body following the closed session.” § 610.022.3.
3
85.
4
Upon information and belief, the Defendants discussed business in the January 29, 2015,
meeting that did not directly relate to any specific reason that might have justified a closed
5
meeting if the Defendants had properly followed the procedures required to lawfully undertake 6 7
such a closed meeting.
8
86.
9
where the January 29, 2015, meeting was being held and did not permit him to remain to attend
10
The Defendants, acting through Defendant Oller, ordered Malin to leave the location
parts of the meeting that under the terms of the Missouri Sunshine Law should have been open to
11 12
the public.
13
87.
14
about to violate the Missouri Sunshine Law by improperly closing a meeting, record, or vote to
15
In the event that a member of a public governmental body recognizes that the body is
the public, he or she may absolve themselves of liability for the violation by stating his or her
16
objection at or before the time the vote is taken and by voting against the closure of the meeting, 17 18
record, or vote. § 610.022.6, RSMo.
19
88.
20
January 29, 2015, meeting and none of the Defendants voted against the closure of the meeting.
21
89.
Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants objected to the closure of the
Under the Missouri Sunshine Law, if a public governmental body or a member of a
22
public governmental body is found knowingly to have violated §§ 610.010 to 610.026, RSMo., 23 24
the court may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 and may order the body or member to pay
25
all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to any party successfully establishing the violation. §
26
610.027.3, RSMo.
27 28
SMC Petition 14
1
90.
As high-ranking officers of public government bodies responsible for enforcing the laws
2
of this state, all members of the Executive Board are aware of the Sunshine Law and its terms.
3
91.
4
Defendant Miller, the Chair of the Executive Board, knew that the Task Force and its
meetings are subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law because Miller had on November 14, 2014,
5
received a Sunshine Law request from Malin for the minutes of Task Force Executive Board 6 7
meetings between January 1, 2013 and November 11, 2014. Miller provided the requested
8
documents. A copy of Malin’s request is attached as Plaintiff Exhibit 3; a copy of Defendant
9
Miller’s letter indicating compliance with the request is attached as Plaintiff Exhibit 4.
10
92.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Miller had taken steps to notify other members
11 12
of the Executive Board that he had received Sunshine Law requests for Task Force records.
13
93.
14
meeting minutes for the Task Force might be considered public records.
15
94.
Upon information and belief, the members of the Executive Board were aware that
The members of the Executive Board were aware that the Missouri Sunshine Law applied
16
to the Task Force and/or the meetings of its Executive Board. 17 18
95.
The members of the Executive Board knowingly violated the Missouri Sunshine law by:
19
a. Failing to appoint a custodian of records as required by § 610.023.1, RSMo.;
20
b. Conducting a public meeting on January 29, 2015, without first giving notice of the
21
time, date, and place of the meeting and its tentative agenda in a manner reasonably
22
calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered; 23 24
c. Holding the January 29, 2015, meeting in a part of the Audrain County Sheriff’s
25
Office that was a “restricted area” and thus not a place reasonably accessible to the
26
public;
27 28
SMC Petition 15
d. Failing to allow the recording of the January 29, 2015, meeting “by audiotape,
1
videotape, or other electronic means[;]”
2 3
e. Excluding Malin from a public meeting that, by law, was required to be open to the
4
public;
5
f. Closing a public meeting without first conducting “an affirmative public vote of the
6
majority of a quorum of the public governmental body,” and without announcing
7 8
publicly “the vote of each member of the public governmental body on the question
9
of closing a public meeting… and the specific reason for closing that public
10
meeting… by reference to a specific section of” the Missouri Sunshine Law;
11
g. Closing an entire public meeting rather than only closing the meeting to the extent
12
necessary for a specific reason authorized by the Missouri Sunshine Law;
13
h. Discussing business at the January 29, 2015, meeting that did not directly relate to
14 15
any specific reason that might justify a closed meeting under the Missouri Sunshine
16
Law. 17 18
96.
Under the Missouri Sunshine Law, if a public governmental body or a member of a
19
public governmental body is found purposely to have violated sections 610.010 to 610.026,
20
RSMo., the court shall impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 and shall order the body or member
21
to pay all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to any party successfully establishing the
22
violation. § 610.027.3, RSMo. 23 24
97.
A purposeful violation of the Missouri Sunshine law entails a conscious design, intent, or
25
plan to violate the law despite being aware of the consequences of doing so. R.L. Polk & Co. v.
26
Missouri Dept. of Revenue, 309 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).
27
98.
The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations contained in ¶¶ 90-94.
28
SMC Petition 16
1
99.
Upon information and belief, prior to January 29, 2015, some or all of the individual
2
Defendant members of the Executive Board were aware that an organization advocating the
3
decriminalization or legalization of marijuana has been attempting to gather information about
4
drug task forces in Missouri.
5
100.
Upon information and belief, some or all of the individual Defendant members of the
6 7
Executive Board wish to avoid providing information to organizations advocating the
8
decriminalization or legalization of marijuana in Missouri.
9
101.
10
Upon information and belief, the decision to exclude Malin from the January 29, 2015,
meeting was made, in part, because he announced his affiliation with Show-Me Cannabis
11 12
Regulation.
13
102.
14
meeting was made, in part, because Malin intended to record the meeting.
15
103.
Upon information and belief, the decision to exclude Malin from the January 29, 2015,
Malin and his colleague expressly told Defendant Oller that the Missouri Sunshine Law
16
required the January 29, 2015, meeting to be open to the public. 17 18
104.
Malin and his colleague expressly told Defendant Oller that excluding Malin from the
19
January 29, 2015, meeting would be a violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law.
20
105.
21
Malin and his colleague expressly told Defendant Oller that violating the Missouri
Sunshine Law by excluding Malin from the January 29, 2015, meeting could result in civil
22
liability. 23 24
106.
Upon information and belief, some or all of the Defendants knew that excluding Malin
25
from the January 29, 2015, meeting would violate the Missouri Sunshine Law and they were
26
aware that violating the Missouri Sunshine Law could result in penalties.
27 28
SMC Petition 17
1 2 3 4
107.
Thus, all of the Defendants – but particularly Defendants Miller and Oller – purposely
violated the Missouri Sunshine Law by: a. Failing to appoint a custodian of records as required by § 610.023.1, RSMo.; b. Conducting a public meeting on January 29, 2015, without first giving notice of the
5
time, date, and place of the meeting and its tentative agenda in a manner reasonably 6 7 8 9 10
calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered; c. Holding the January 29, 2015, meeting in a part of the Audrain County Sheriff’s Office that was a “restricted area” and thus not a place reasonably accessible to the public;
11 12 13 14 15 16
d. Failing to allow the recording of the January 29, 2015, meeting “by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means[;]” e. Excluding Malin from a public meeting that, by law, was required to be open to the public; f. Closing a public meeting without first conducting “an affirmative public vote of the
17 18
majority of a quorum of the public governmental body,” and without announcing
19
publicly “the vote of each member of the public governmental body on the question
20
of closing a public meeting… and the specific reason for closing that public
21
meeting… by reference to a specific section of” the Missouri Sunshine Law;
22
g. Closing an entire public meeting rather than only closing the meeting to the extent 23 24 25 26 27
necessary for a specific reason authorized by the Missouri Sunshine Law; h. Discussing business at the January 29, 2015, meeting that did not directly relate to any specific reason that might justify a closed meeting under the Missouri Sunshine Law.
28
SMC Petition 18
1 2 3 4 5
WHEREFORE The Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, and: A. Declare that the East Central Missouri Task Force and/or the Task Force’s Executive Board is a public governmental body for the purposes of the Missouri Sunshine Act; B. Declare that meetings of the Task Force’s Executive Board are public meetings
6 7
subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law;
8
C. Declare that the January 29, 2015, meeting of the Task Force’s Executive Board was
9
a public meeting subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law and was not subject
10
to any exception that would require or permit the Defendants to exclude Malin from
11 12 13 14 15
the meeting; D. Find that the Defendants purposely or, in the alternative, knowingly violated the Sunshine Law in all the ways enumerated in this Petition; E. Impose civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation against the Defendants, as
16
required by the Sunshine Law for purposeful or knowing violations thereof; 17 18 19 20 21 22
F. Award the Plaintiffs the cost of litigation expenses and attorney fees as required by the Sunshine Law; G. Enter an order enjoining the Defendants from excluding Malin or any other citizen from future meetings of the East Central Missouri Task Force Executive Board unless the Executive Board has first complied with the Sunshine Law’s requirements for
23 24 25
closing part or all of a meeting; and H. Grant to the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as is just and proper.
26
Respectfully submitted, 27 28
______________________________________ David E. Roland Mo. Bar #60548 SMC Petition 19
1 2 3 4
14779 Audrain Road 815 Mexico, MO 65265 Phone:(314) 604-6621 Fax: (314) 720-0989 Email: libertyandjustice@gmail.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SMC Petition 20