Missouri Press Association
Serving Missouri Newspapers Since 1867
A Missouri Appeals Court last month upheld a trial court finding that a county sheriff has misused the investigation exception to producing investigative records.
The facts of the case were these: In the Summer of 2023, a nine-year-old black lab mix named Parker became disoriented in a storm and wandered from home. The Stoddard County Sheriff’s Office was contacted by the person who found the dog, and a deputy picked up Parker. But Parker did not make it back to its owners – Parker’s body was discovered shot to death and left in a ditch.
Parker’s family made a Sunshine Law request to the Sheriff’s Office for “all body worn camera footage for [the deputy] created on August 27, 2023,” the day the dog died. The sheriff’s office, however, substantively denied the request, refusing to provide the body-cam video, claiming there were “active investigations.”
Days later, Parker’s family’s attorneys filed a lawsuit to obtain the body-cam footage. They also alleged the sheriff knowingly violated the Sunshine Law because there was no ongoing investigation. Trial occurred in May 2024, where the sheriff argued that for the safety of the public, and due to an ongoing criminal investigation, the body-cam footage needed to be withheld – it just so happened – until 20 days after the sheriff’s election.
The withheld footage showed this:
Initially, the deputy opened the door to his patrol vehicle and walked away. Parker jumped out of the vehicle and ran up and down a ditch bank. The deputy then called, “Come here, boy, sit down.” Parker sat down and was then shot by the deputy. Parker did not die immediately but laid there “in great pain” for about eight minutes. The deputy then shot Parker again, finally killing him, and threw Parker’s body in the ditch.
The sheriff testified that the deputy had been sent to “euthanize an injured dog” and that his upcoming election was not the motive for withholding the video; instead, because he considered the investigation active, he could not release the video until the statute of limitations was up on a misdemeanor animal-abuse charge.
But the sheriff also testified that nothing had been done on the “investigation” and that he “planned on ‘doing nothing in the future[.]’”
The trial court ruled – and this may be the most helpful piece for newspapers – that the sheriff’s position was substantially unjustified, and that the recordings should have been released, holding that the sheriff “actively sought to hide the apparent disturbing actions of one of his deputies in order to avoid an apparent outcry…” The sheriff should have filed an action within 30 days of the family’s request for the video if it truly wanted to keep the files closed under the investigation exception. The Court assessed a penalty and awarded attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.
The actual holdings of the Court of Appeals are also helpful on the margins: The Court of Appeals held that just because the family eventually got the body cam videos from somewhere else
(the prosecutor’s office), did not get the sheriff off the hook for his office’s own delay. It also held that the sheriff did have penalties for not producing body cam video.
The case is The Oliver Firm, LC v. Hefner, SD38762 (Mo.App.S.D. February 4, 2026).
***
I have recently fielded some questions from newspapers struggling with veiled threats from cities to change their reporting or in some cases, outright attacks on the paper itself. This likely comes with the territory of covering local politics. Municipalities can “speak their mind” so to speak.
But there are limits. For instance, the law is well settled that cities can cross the line when they start taking actions against newspapers – such as pulling ads. The touchstone case on this is North Miss. Comm., Inc. v. Jones, 951 F.2d 652, 653-54 (5th Cir. 1992), which held that a county board’s decision to withhold legal notice advertising could be an intimidating tactic that violates the First Amendment.
This rule remains robust, even in these times. For example, late last year, a Colorado town settled a First Amendment lawsuit against it after it canceled advertising in a newspaper (the I-70 Scout) that had published an article it did not like.
So, I think the best course of action when dealing with a municipality that is disgruntled is to remind everyone that the First Amendment forbids any retaliation by the state against a person or the press for protected speech.
