The Indiana Publisher

Page 8 April 10, 2014 A dispute between Purdue University and school newspaper The Exponent highlights an aspect of the Access to Public Records Act that might need a judicial decision or legisla tive action to clarify. The question is whether the public still has a right to inspect and copy public records after law enforce ment considers the records evidence in a criminal inves tigation. The answer lies with the state's legislative intent of the term "investigatory record," defined as "informa tion compiled in the course of the investigation of a crime" at IC 51432(h). Police can keep investigatory records confidential if they choose. The Exponent wants Purdue to release surveil lance video of officers con fronting a photographer following a fatal shooting on campus in January. The newspaper says the footage would support the photojour nalist's account that he was harassed and manhandled. Purdue police so far have refused to release surveil lance video from the build ing, citing the investigatory records exemption. HSPA contends that the status of normally disclosable records shouldn't change just because police say they could be used as evidence. What was available to view and copy on Monday should still be available on Tuesday. The Times (Munster) suc cessfully made this argu ment to the Lake County Prosecutor's Office a few years ago. Political candidates' finan cial disclosures – public records required of candi dates to allow constituents to see who supports campaigns – were swept up in a corrup tion investigation, but the prosecutor agreed to make copies of the records available for The Times. Unfortunately, Indiana public access counselors haven't always agreed with HSPA on this matter. More than one access coun selor has said that "informa tion compiled in the course of the investigation of a crime," as defined in IC 51432(h), means any information col lected by law enforcement, whether it's a record created by the police, collected from a private party or gathered from a public agency. No one has yet presented Indiana appellate courts with a case to weigh in on the stat ute. The Purdue dispute concerns a confrontation between university police and Exponent photo edi tor Michael Takeda inside the school's Electrical Engineering Building on Jan. 21. Police were securing the building following the fatal stabbing and shooting of a student in the basement of the building. Takeda entered the second floor of the building through an unsecured door after the shooting and was stopped by police while leaving. Police say they acted in accordance with law enforce ment policy. Takeda says officers pushed him to the ground and cursed at him. Not in dispute is that offi cers detained Takeda at a police station for two hours and confiscated his cameras and phone for an additional hour. It's not known whether they viewed Takeda's photos. Takeda said in hindsight that entering the building soon after the killing was a mistake, but Exponent publisher and general man ager Pat Kuhnle said that doesn't excuse confiscation of his equipment. That could violate the federal Privacy Protection Act – passed to protect journalists from law enforcement seizure of notes, photos, videos, etc. – and The Exponent is considering filing a complaint. A Purdue police internal investigation found the offi cers acted appropriately. When The Exponent requested footage from security cameras that likely would have captured the confrontation, Purdue said officers apprehended Takeda on the first floor, where no cameras are stationed. Takeda maintains he was taken into custody on the sec ond floor, which has several cameras. Later Purdue denied access to all building video under the investigatory records exception, even though no one claims Takeda's deten tion has any impact on the prosecution of the murder suspect. Even if the footage falls under the investigatory records exception, Purdue can make it available for inspec tion and copying. The excep tion doesn't mandate secrecy; rather it allows discretion for it. I can think of only one logi cal reason for Purdue guard ing this video so tightly: The footage doesn't support the internal investigation. Steve Key is executive director and general counsel for HSPA. Key Points By Steve Key Police video claim doesn't add up We'll make you stand out. Commercial Web & Sheetfed Printing Personalized Customer Service // Mailing & Fulfillment Resources Quick Turnaround // Two Central Indiana Production Facilities 3330 W. International Ct, Columbus // 812.342.1056 22 W. New Road, Greenfield // 317.462.5528 bstone@hneprinting.com Eye-catching printed materials keep your customers focused on you. O n e f a m i l y - 1 4 0 y e a r s Full Service Printing, Bindery & Mailing HNEPrinting.com LIKE THE HOOSIER STATE PRESS ASSOCIATION ON FACEBOOK TO KEEP UP WITH NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY UPDATES, CONTEST DEADLINES AND OTHER NEWS. Auditor in court over public records F loyd County Auditor Scott Clark was in court April 7 following a claim that his office had failed to make public records available to a woman who requested the documents. Kathy Lowe of Harrison County filed a motion of default judgment in March that led to the civil hearing in Floyd County Circuit Court. Lowe claims Clark has dismissed her numerous attempts to obtain claims and invoices related to the three David Camm trials and the renovation of the Pine View Youth Shelter and Government Center. Lowe's accusations are supported by an Indiana public access counselor ruling. A letter drafted by Public Access Counselor Luke Britt's office to Lowe in January reads, "You are certainly entitled to the records you seek unless the auditor can demonstrate that the information falls into one of the enumerated exceptions under the Access to Public Records Act. Without the benefit of the auditor's response, it appears that the agency has violated the APRA in not responding to your request. "It is the opinion of the Public Access Counselor the Floyd County Auditor violated the APRA." Lowe, an Elizabeth resident, is from New Albany and said she had a deep interest in each of the Camm trails and their costs to Floyd County taxpayers. "When I asked for more specific things, Scott Clark told me that he could not give me information on the first or second trials because no one had ever actually added [their costs] up," Lowe said. Lowe said Clark also would not respond to her emails requesting information. Floyd County's attorney Richard Fox, who is representing Clark, said the auditor's office has complied with Lowe's requests and that her frustration stems from miscommunication. After receiving a response from the state's public access counselor, Clark provided Lowe with a lengthy transaction history of the auditor's office, which Fox said shows every bill paid that was requested. Lowe said the content of the documents is not what she requested. Presiding Judge Terrence Cody ruled that Lowe can visit the auditor's office, review relevant public documents and make copies at a cost of 10 cents a sheet. Lowe said she is pleased with Cody attempting to make the public records more easily available to her, but she's still feeling deflated. Lowe said she is uncertain if Cody's ruling will make it easier for her to obtain documents from the auditor's office in the future. "We will see," she said. News & Tribune (Jeffersonville) report IN THE NEWS: PUBLIC ACCESS

• Cover