Giacomo Bologna|Springfield News-Leader
Contradicting state open records laws, the Greene County Sheriff's Office is refusing to identify people arrested in connection to an alleged marijuana grow operation.
The sheriff's office posted on Facebook, Nextdoor and Twitterearlier this month, announcing they had seized hundreds of marijuana plants from a property near Ash Grove and arrested two people.
The News-Leader filed records requests for the arrest reports.
The sheriff's office provided two arrest reports, but blacked out the names ofthe two people arrested.
Missouri's open records laws — known as the Sunshine Law— say all arrest reports "shall be open records."
Jean Maneke, attorney for the Missouri Press Association, said she's not aware of any reason why an arrest report would not include the arrested person's name.
“I cannot fathom any reason why an arrest report should have names redacted,” Maneke said. “...The Sunshine Law absolutely says that’s a public record, and that’s one of the reasons that the colonists left England —because they didn’t like secret courts and secret arrests.”
When asked why the names had been redacted, Lt. Nancy White said it was because releasing the names could jeopardize a criminal investigation.
Under Sunshine Law, many law enforcement records can be closed if their release would jeopardize a criminal investigation — but not arrest reports.
When the News-Leader pointed out that the Sunshine Law specifically exempts arrest reports from being redacted or closed by law enforcement agencies, a paralegal for the sheriff's office, Valerie Petersen, replied.
"Our legal counsel conducted additional research to be sure we were responding as accurately and appropriately as possible given the circ*mstances," Petersen said in an email.
The News-Leader then spoke to Petersen over the phone and asked what "additional research" was done.
"I don't know exactly where he looked," Petersen said of an attorney.
Petersen pointed out thatthe definition of "arrest report" in the Sunshine Law does not say an arrest report mustinclude the name of the person arrested.
"That is our position at this time," Petersen said. "It doesn't say that's part of it."
However, the arrest reports provided by the sheriff's office did include names. The sheriff's office redacted them.
When asked why the sheriff's office decided to black out the names in the arrest report, Petersen pointed to the section of Sunshine Law about redacting records that could jeopardize a criminal investigation.
The News-Leader again pointed out that the section of Sunshine Law cited by the sheriff's office applies to "any portion of a record or document of a law enforcement officer or agency, other than an arrest report."
Petersen maintained that the sheriff's office has authority to redact names from arrest reports.
"I went through this very thoroughly with our legal counsel," Petersen said. "The sheriff agrees with that decision. I mean, we could argue about this all day."
The News-Leader has since filed a complaint with the Missouri Attorney General's Office over the sheriff's office redaction of the arrest reports.
The News-Leader called the sheriff's spokesman, Cpl. James Craigmyle, Friday to ask why releasing the names of the arrested suspect could jeopardize the investigation into the alleged marijuana bust.
Craigmyle did not answer.
In response to an email, Craigmyle wrote that he was out of the office.
Earlier this month, Craigmyle said he is training dogs and would be out of the office for at least seven to eight weeks.
In his absence, public court records have shed light onthe investigation into the alleged marijuana grow operation.
According to asearch warrant filed by a deputy of the Greene County Sheriff, deputiesresponded to a call for service on Sunday, Oct. 14., in reference to an abandoned property near Clear Creek Bridge on North State Highway V.
Once there, deputies found a large amount of marijuana rolled up in a tarp lying just over a fence, the warrant says.
The property owner was contacted via telephone, the warrant says, and he gave verbal consent for deputies to search his property.
Deputies say they found more rolled uptarps with marijuana inside. The tarps also contained electric pumps, grow chemical and gardening tools, which were seized, according to the warrant.
The warrant says that on the property, there was a barn, a structure under construction, what appeared to be a vacant home,andmultiple cars.
The property owner was recontacted, the warrant said, and he explained that the property was under contract for deed.
Contract for deed is an agreement where the buyer possesses the land and makes payments to the seller, but the seller maintains the legal title to the property.
The warrant says deputies did not find anyone at the property.
At one point, a deputy walked over to the barn and could see, through open doors and missing boards, a large amount of marijuana plants hanging to dry inside, according to the warrant.
The warrant says a deputy also saw a large amount of marijuana leaves and buds in the bed of a truck parked by the barn.
A deputy then applied for a search warrant of the property, which was executed early Monday, Oct. 15.
The arrest reports indicate that two people — names redacted — were arrested at the same time and place the warrant was executed.
The warrant says deputies seized a game camera, marijuana from the center console of a GMC truck, marijuana from a residence under construction, and marijuana plants.
Deputies have filed a subsequent warrant to search the game camera for videos, photos and other datarelated to a marijuana grow operation.
The man who possesses the property where deputies searched is named in a search warrant application as well as county property records — both of which are publicly available.
That man was in the Greene County Jail on Wednesday on suspicion of a drug crime but is no longer there, according to the online jail roster.
He was also named in an asset forfeiture suit filed by the Greene County Prosecutor's Office.
An asset forfeiture suit is a civil action that allowsauthorities to seize property used in or originating from criminal activity.
According to the suit, deputies searched a property occupied by him and another person on Tuesday and seized more than $3,000 allegedly connected to manufacturing a controlled substance.
It appears from the suit that the seizure took place at a residence in Republic.
The News-Leader is not publishing the man's name, pending an explanation from the sheriff's office why releasing thenames of people arrestedcould jeopardize this case.
