DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
6/15/2017 12:08 PM
02-CV-2017-901580.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

MEREDITH CORPORATION )
D/B/A WALA-TV/FOX10 NEWS, )
)
P LAINTIFF, )
)
VERSUS ) C IVIL A CTION N O.
)
CITY OF MOBILE, )
)
D EFENDANT. )

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Meredith Corporation d/b/a WALA-TV/Fox10, through

undersigned counsel, who, for its Complaint against Defendant, City of Mobile, respectfully

states as follows:

1. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Iowa, and is the FOX television affiliate for the Mobile metropolitan area

broadcasting under the call letters of WALA-TV. An essential function of the corporation

is the gathering of information from public records concerning the acts and functions of

public officials in the furtherance of the business and governmental function of the city

government for broadcast in the daily news for programming in order that the public affairs

may be understood and intelligently considered by the public. Plaintiff has a public interest

in the actions and functioning of public government and the acts of public officials in the

furtherance of the governmental function so as to entitle its reporters to investigate and obtain

Page 1 of 7
 DOCUMENT 2

copies of public records. In addition, Plaintiff has a pecuniary interest in gathering such

information for broadcast in its daily news programming.

2. The Defendant and its various officers, agents, servants, employees and

attorneys are responsible for administering the city government in accordance with the public

trust and in accordance therewith has the duty to maintain public records concerning the

business and governmental activities required and/or accomplished by a public body so that

the status and condition of such business and governmental activities can be known by the

citizens.

3. Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit because of the nature of the Alabama

Open Records Act, 36-12-40, Ala. Code (1975) (hereinafter, the Open Records Act),

which grants standing in the members of the public to enforce their right to inspect and copy

any public writings of this State.

4. Upon information and belief, the Mobile Police Department purchased police-

worn cameras for use by its personnel beginning in or around March 2015. Since the time

that the police-worn cameras have gone into use by the Police Department, certain incidents

of public interest have occurred concerning citizen/police officer interactions for which

police-worn camera footage exists. For instance, McGill-Toolen High School (McGill)

and Murphy High School (Murphy) played their annual football game on Friday,

September 2, 2016, resulting in a victory by McGill over Murphy with a final score of 43 to

0. At some point during the course of the football game or immediately thereafter, a crowd

Page 2 of 7
 DOCUMENT 2

gathered to paint the cannon located at Memorial Park, 1800 Airport Boulevard, Mobile,

Alabama 36606. By tradition, the cannon is painted every year in a peaceful celebration by

students of the victorious school in that schools colors after the game. Notwithstanding the

usually benign nature of the event, some type of altercation occurred which resulted in one

or more Mobile police officers using pepper spray on the celebrants at Memorial Park on

September 2, 2016 (hereinafter, the September 2, 2016 pepper spray incident). Plaintiff

is informed and believes that one or more of the Mobile police officers who used pepper

spray on the celebrants was wearing an operative police-worn camera.

5. Within days, the Mobile Police Department conducted an internal investigation

regarding the events surrounding the September 2, 2016, pepper spray incident, resulting in

at least one of the police officers being disciplined for his/her role therein. After receiving

numerous communications from concerned citizens seeking factual information as to the

events which transpired, Plaintiff requested the police-worn camera footage taken during the

September 2, 2016, pepper spray incident by the police officers from the Mobile Police

Department. The Mobile Police Department refused Plaintiffs request.

6. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff made a formal request via certified mail to

Defendant, seeking any documents that constitute the City of Mobiles policy or policies for

police-worn cameras, including (but not limited to) any policies on preservation of video,

release of video, custodial obligations, authentication, or the like. See, September 19, 2016,

correspondence from Scott Flannigan, News Director, FOX10, WALA-TV, to City of

Page 3 of 7
 DOCUMENT 2

Mobile, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.

7. The September 19, 2016, correspondence referenced in paragraph 6, above,

was transmitted to the following City of Mobile officers, among others: Mayor Sandy

Stimpson; then Public Safety Director, Rich Landolt; then Mobile Police Chief, James

Barber; Mobile City Council President, Gina Gregory; Mobile City Council Vice President

Frederick Richardson, Jr.; Mobile City Councilman District 2, Levon Manzie; Mobile City

Councilman District 3, C.J. Small; Mobile City Councilman District 4, John C. Williams;

Mobile City Councilman District 5, Joel Daves; and Mobile City Councilman District 6, Bess

Rich.

8. In an effort to resolve certain of the issues referenced in the September 19,

2016, correspondence, representatives of Plaintiff met with representatives of Defendant at

Mobile Government Plaza on September 29, 2016. That meeting resolved with an informal

understanding between the parties that Defendant would seek an opinion of the Alabama

Attorney General outlining Defendants obligations with regard to the production of police-

worn camera footage. Upon information and belief, Defendant has never sought the opinion

of the Alabama Attorney General as had been expected following the September 29, 2016,

meeting.

9. After receiving no response with regard to the September 19, 2016, Open

Records Act request for more than eight (8) months, Plaintiff followed-up with Defendant

regarding the request on June 8, 2017.

Page 4 of 7
 DOCUMENT 2

10. In response to Plaintiffs June 8, 2017 inquiry, Defendant formally refused

Plaintiffs Open Records Act request by stating [w]e do not release our policies. See, June

13, 2017, email correspondence from Charlette Solis, City of Mobile, to Kati Weis, WALA-

TV/Fox 10, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B.

11. Notwithstanding Defendants assertion to the contrary, the City of Mobiles

policy or policies for police-worn cameras, including (but not limited to) any policies on

preservation of video, release of video, custodial obligations, authentication, or the like is

such a record as is reasonably necessary to record the business and activities required to be

done or carried on by a public officer so that the status and condition of such business and

activities can be known by our citizens, and is therefore subject to production pursuant to the

Open Records Act. See, 36-12-40, Ala. Code (1975). As such, Defendants repeated and

continued denial of access to the public records to the press and to the public is a violation

of the Open Records Act. Id.

12. Such denial of access to public records causes great harm to the public for

which there is no adequate remedy at law.

13. Defendant has given no assurance that it will cease to withhold from the public

such public records.

14. Plaintiff alleges that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will

result to it and all members of the public unless Defendant is restrained from violating 36-

12-40, by refusing and denying the public access to public records the disclosure of which

Page 5 of 7
 DOCUMENT 2

will not adversely affect the public interest and that injunctive relief is necessary because

there is no adequate remedy in law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Meredith Corporation d/b/a WALA-TV/Fox 10, prays for

relief against Defendant, City of Mobile, as follows:

a) That this matter be set for an immediate hearing on a preliminary injunction

and a preliminary injunction issue restraining Defendant from violating 36-12-40, Ala.

Code (1975), by excluding the public, including Plaintiff, from inspecting or copying public

records or any portion thereof pertaining to the business and governmental function of the

City of Mobile, and specifically any documents that constitute the City of Mobiles policy

or policies for police-worn cameras, including (but not limited to) any policies on

preservation of video, release of video, custodial obligations, authentication, or the like;

b) That after the conclusion of a hearing upon the merits of this action, this Court

enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from the acts complained of;

c) That in equitable recognition of Defendants patent violation of the law and the

common benefit that would be conferred on members of the public by the Plaintiff

prevailing herein, the Court make an award of attorneys fees to Plaintiff in compensation

for rendering a public service by bringing an end to this improper practice; and

d) That the Court issue an order for any other, further, and/or different relief to

which Plaintiff may be entitled, the premises considered.

Page 6 of 7
 DOCUMENT 2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Carroll H. Sullivan

CARROLL H. SULLIVAN (SUL013)
Attorney for Defendant Meredith Corporation
d/b/a WALA-TV/Fox 10

OF COUNSEL:
SCOTT, SULLIVAN, STREETMAN & FOX, P.C.
Post Office Box 1034
Mobile, Alabama 36633
(251) 433-1346 Telephone
(251) 433-1086 Facsimile
E-Mail: csullivan@scottsullivanlaw.com

PLEASE SERVE DEFENDANT BY CERTIFIED MAIL AS FOLLOWS:

City of Mobile
c/o Hon. Sandy Stimpson
P.O. Box 1827
Mobile, Alabama 36633

Page 7 of 7