ILNews

Court rules in favor of police department on inmate’s request for records

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The inmate who filed a public records request with the Indianapolis Police Department nearly nine years ago lost his case on appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday.

John Lane-El was convicted of a sex crime that occurred in 1992 and was incarcerated when he filed his request in 2006 for public records with the Indianapolis Police Department under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act related to his criminal case. The police department did not initially respond to his request, and later, after a court order, produced only a redacted incident report. The city of Indianapolis’ public access counselor Lauren Toppen sent Lane-El the letter responding to his request, telling him that everything else was exempt from disclosure because it was compiled in the course of an investigation.

IPD eventually filed a motion to dismiss and Lane-El filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in 2013 in favor of the defendants and denied Lane-El’s motion for in camera review of the requested public records.

The Court of Appeals found the lower court erred in determining that IPD is not a public agency subject to the APRA and therefore not a proper party for the lawsuit. The police department qualifies as a law enforcement agency, so it fits the Act’s definition of “public agency.” The trial court also erred in determining that then-Chief of Police Michael Spears was not a proper party and concluding he was immune from suit under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. But Lane-El’s complaint does not allege a type of loss applicable to the ITCA, the judges found. They also found the chief is not a proper party to the suit because the APRA does not authorize an action to compel records against an individual.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the police department’s cross-motion for summary judgment because the public records Lane-El requested were “investigatory records” that were exempt from the APRA at IPD’s discretion. The judges rejected Lane-El’s argument that because the records were more than 20 years old and not part of an active investigation, they should be released.

They also found the trial court did not commit clear error in denying his motion for in camera review.

The case is John Lane-El v. Michael Spears, in his official capacity of Chief of Police, and the Indianapolis Police Department, 49A05-1306-PL-289.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT