No right of inspection of public records of the Kansas City Police Department exist either under Sec. 109.180, RSMo 1959, or a common law except for those records expressly required by law to be kept.

Pl.lBLIC RECORDS : KANSAS CITY POLICE DEPARTI{ENT: RIGHT OF INSPECTION: No right of inspectiol, of p0licc records of the Kansas City Police Department exist either under Sec . 109 .180, RSMo 1959, or a common law except for those records expressly required by law t o be kept . Honorable w. H. Bates secretary Board of Po~iee Commissioners ltanaaa City 6 • M18SOUJf1 Pear Sir: OPINION NO . 2 F-l ' r-r-,. L t!.J a, We have ;your t-equest ror an opinion or this off"1ce whe»ein you inquire whether Section 109.1801 RBM~ 1961 eum. Supp., requires that cer~1n documen~_s ·and reports uaed arid kept b~ the Kanaas City Police Depaxttment muat be opened to public in- spection. 'l'he relevant porUon or that seet1on is aa f'ollow4: "Bxeept aa otherwise provided by law, all state. county and munie1pal recorda kept purauant to statute or ordinance shall a~ all reasonable timea be open for a personal i-nspection by any citizen or Missouri. and tboae in charge ot the recorda shall not refuae the privilege to anv citizen." A misdemeanor penaltJ 1s provided for anJ official who tails to observe the quoted provision. and Section 109.190, RS~, 196 ·cum. Supp., guanAtees the right to photograph or other- wise cow any records included ul\der Seo~ion 109 .180. We have •xamined the detailed lists of the hundreds of repoJtts and records kept by the Kansas -city Police Department which you have submitted. !hey JllQ' be d1v1ded, roughly, 1nto operational ~cords and a~st»ative ~cor4a. A great va- riety o.t mater1a1 1s contained in each subgroup. Operational ~cords include the basic offense, arrest and investigation repo~ts; ehe reports of spee1alj_zed depat':tments dealing with auoh matters as homicide, vice, narcotics, arson and bombing, bul"glaey and tbert~ sex offenses, tr&.f"fic and safety, etc. ; alias f1l,&s; intormera' repot'ta.; lists of known ott-end&~; and many O-ther too numaroua to mention. Generally speaking, Honorable W. H. Bates 1t may be said that theae reoorde deal with the basic police fUnctions - the prevention ot crime and the apprehension of offenders. 'l'he adm.1n1strat1 ve records, on the other hand~ relate pr1noipall7 to the organization and administration of the Police D4tpartment. They are concerned primarily with inter- nal matters such as aas1g~nta, financial attairs, research. inventories, correspondence, training, eto. The nature or these records is relevani; in the light of the statutor.y language which permits inspection ot records (unless such inapeotion 1B elsewhere prohibited) "k~pt pur· auant to statute or ordinance. 91 Sec tiona 84.350 - 84 .ago, RSMo 1959. aetting out the organization and powers ot the Kansas City Police Department • do require that certain recorda be kept. The7 are as tollows: § 84.420.2(1) - Rulea and regulations concerning the conduct ot the Department. § 84 .500( 1) .. Repo:pte from the chiet ot police to the Boat-d. concerning the promot~on, cH.aeiplinJ.ng, discharge or auapenaion tor more than t1tteen days ot police officers and other employees. § 84.500(2) - An annual x-eport trom the obiet of police to the Board on the administrative and law enforcement activities ot the Department with atat1at1cs ot all polioe work. § 84 .500( 3) - An annual report trom the ohiet ot police to the Board on t~oial requirement& ~or tbe o~ year. § 84.730 - An annual budget estimate must be prepared by the Board. f 84.740 - A tinal budget muat be prepared and adopted annuall7 bJ' the Board. § 84.750 - Vouchers. authorizing expend1· tures, are provided tor. -2- Honorable W. H. Bates § 84.790 - A Journal or the proceedings ot the Boa.N must be kept aa well aa journals and books ot account showing receipt• and disbursements of money. Such recorda must alwaya be aval.lable tor 1nspeot1on by the General Aaaembly. An annual report must be made to the Kanaaa City Cit, CouncLl a•tt1ng out the number and expense• ot the police force and such other matters ae may be o£ public interest. S 84 .840 • An annual audit of the Department' a accounts must be .ade and published. It ia our view that the right ot public inspection provided by Section 109.180 extende onlY to the above-listed records re- quired to be kept by statute. Nowhere ~a it appear that the various operational r&ports which you list are kept pursuant to ttatute and very tew ot the adm1n1atrat1ve re-ports are ao kept. This tact was noted bJ the Court or Appeals 1n Wb.ite v. Haaburgh, Mo. App ., 124 SW2d 560, where tha defendant in a civil damage suit aGught to introduce into evidence a police ~port prepared by a Jtanaaa Cit,- police officer who investigated the automobile accident out ot which the suit arose. The Court pointed out (l.o. 565): "There ia no sta~uife, oreren an ordinance, p~v1d1ng tor such report• • lt Your letter directs our attention to Section 84.500, pre- vioualy mentioned, which req~a the pteparation ot an annual report, including atat1st1ca on all police work~ and you state that it 1a necessaey 1n order to prov14e the data tor thia re- port tor the various un1 ts w1 thin the DepUttmetlt to maintain recorda and reports showing all ot their administrative and law enforcement activities . Wh!le it m&T be 9hat the preparation ot the annual report 1a facilitated by the maintenance of these reports, 1 t doe a not tollow that aueh J-eporta are "kept pursuant to statute." Section 84 .500(2 ) requ.i.res only a a~ account of police activities and administration throughout the year and it would seem that th1s could be gathere4 simply trom a running atatiati- cal record or numbers and types or of'f'enaes, arrests, etc., as well from 1ntormat1on gained rrom individual investigative re- ports. S1m.1l~y, adm.1n1atrat1 ve data j.a required only in terms ot totals, rather than apecit1c transactions. Thus the statute is satisfied by a statement of the total number of offenses -3- Honorable w. H. Bates report.d during the year or a st·atement ot the total p~roll, rather than a detailed account ot the c1roumstances or each arrest or a list of the amount paid each pereon employed by the Department. Neoeaaarily, a large discretion is vested in the ch1et of pol~ce in the manner in which he prepares the annual report and it ~an bar4ly be said the aources ot the data uaed in compiling summaries tor the report become public re.oorde by virtue of that taot. '.rhe aame reasoning applies to the recorda used 1n preparing the budget estimate and final budget required by Sections 84.730 and 84.740. An annual report ia also required of the Superintendent o£ the State H1ghw~ Patrol by Section 43.120(5), RSMo 1959, proViding that he u • • • shall make to the governor and the comm1se1on a report of the activities of the patrol and the coat thereof tor the fiscal year." Yet, in Ensminger v. Stout, Mo. App . , 287 SW2d 400, where it was sought to intro- duce into evidence the investigat1 ve re-wert ot a highway patrolman, the Court said (l.c. 407}: It (~he report] was not required by any statut& to be made or f i led." Por these reasons~ it ia our conclusion that the only recorda to which the right of inspection contained in Section 109 .18o applies are those expressly required to be kept by law aa listed above. However~ the right to inspection of public records is one which existed under the common law of the state even before the enactment or SectJ.on 109 ..180. In Disabled Police Veterans Club v. Long, Mo. App. ~ 279 SW2d 220, 223, the Court said: "Generally, ~ writing or document constituting a public record is subject to inspection by the public. • • • • ,. Moreover, the concept ot a public record at common law is broader than the standard ot "kept purauant to statute or or- dinance" contained 1n Bact1on 109.180. In Disabled Pollee Veterans Club v. Lo.ng. supra, the Court atate4 ( l.c. 223): "Independently- ot statute the term public records oovera not only papers expressly required to be kept by a public officer but all written memorials made by a public ott1eer wit~ his author1~ where such writings constitute a convenient, appro- priate or customary method of discharging the duties of the of'tice. International -4- Honorable w. H, Ba~es Union# etc • v. Oood1ng, 2'l W1a • 3.62, 29 N.W.2d 730# 135; Cono·ver v. Boa.x-<1 ot Bducatton. etc., l Utah 2d 375., 267 P. 2d 7~1 110; People v~ S~w. 17 Cal. ad 1781 112 P. 24 241, 259• We ere o~ the view that the authors ot Section 109.180 did not P:ropose to re,str1ct the right or 1Mpe.ot1on gran,ed at com- mon la• but rather intended onlJ to express that ~1ght 1n stat• u~o17 form an4 prov!de penal ties tor those who ·"'ould deny it. Section 109.180 1s a remedial. aa.tute and should be given a liberill conetruction with a v'iew towal-d& a1i"ln1ng the end sought to be achL&ved. C1t7 ot st,. Louis v. C~nter, Mo •• 341. SW2d 786. Tllis 1-a especially the ease with statutes con• r-erring the right t-o 1nape-.ct or uae publi·e Meol'ds, which should be l1beral}7 cotta trued in favor or ihspeot:ion. In re Mosher (a •. c .P .A. 1957), 248 If .ad 956. ~· quest-ton remaine • then1 whether there is a righ* of 1nspec~1on at common law or the "col'ds in question in tne light or the bvoader common•law conc$ption ot a publie reeord aa something more than one kept pux'euant to sta~ute. ot eourae, if' a r1gh~ ot tnspee~ion .ts claimed under the eonuuon law • the right is subJect to all ot the exeept1ona and qualifications contained 1n th$ oommon law. In Maabled Polio& Veterans Club v. Long, .aupl.'A, the eourt recogniz•d the exietence of these qual1t1cat1cma, although not spelling them out, fla.y1x.g (l.e. 223): 11'.l'bis nght to 1nspee~ and to copy public records 1e not an unlimited z.ight. It 18 sub Jeot to sueh J~eason­ able ~gulationa as may be 1mpo~ed to prevent undue 1nte~el'enoe w1 th tne prope~ tunetioning ot the public otf'1eiala 1nvol ve4. s~ate e-x rel. lggers v. Brown,. auptt.a. 'i'urthti"more~ public pol14J' demands ~hat .aome .Public N .cottd.s muet be kept secret and fl'ee trom common inapection. In ces-tain ait;uationt public recorda may, in the public interest" be nth- held t~rn publ.io 1nspeetio11. I'b is unn&~~ssa~ to consider further th1& eoum'lon-law exception to the ;right to 1nttpeet public recorda bt'Oauae 'he -5· Honorable W. H. Bate-s respondenus have made no serious claim to come under any eommon-law 11m1taUon and we are unable to discover any. 'fhe7 are in no position to insist that ~ public interest will be 3erved by keeping the requested 1ntormat1on secret. International muon, etc • v. GoodUJg., 251 \f1a. 362, 29 N.W.2d 730, 736.' 1 'l'b.e case there cited, International Union v. Gooding, atates aa follows {l.c. 29 N.W.2d 736): nwe ahall no~ go into the scope ot the common•law right exhaua,1vel7 or attempt to document our obaervat1ona upon it. It ia enough to aa;y that theN are num- orou3 11m1ta\1ona under the common law upon the right ot the public to examine papers that are in the banda ot an ott1- cer aa such orr1oer. Documentary evidence in the hands or a district attorne~, minutes or a grand .1Ul'T, evidence 1n a divorce action ordered sealed b7 the co~ are typical. 'l'he llat could be expanded but the foregoing 1• enough to illustrate that 1n certain aituation.a a paper may in tho public interest be withheld trom public inspection. • • ••• More apec1:t'1cally • 1n Wh1 ttle v. Munahower.. Md., 155 A .2d 670, 672, tne court said; 11 • • • But we ~ aware ot no lltatutory provision that declares that reports made by state police to their aupe~or ot~1oer, or information gathered by them in the- courae o.f their 1nvest1gat1ona ot :reported crimes, should be publlo recorda, or open to inspection. In th& abaence ot atatutory requirement, it ~a generallY' held that pol,1ce reooros are confidential. See 45 Am. Ju.r., Jteoorde and Recording Laws, 126, p . 433 ••• • " And, finally, the general rule aa to the confidentiality ot police records ot common law waa explicitly stated 1n Lee v. Beach Publishing Co., 127 .l'la. 600, 173 So. 440, 442, aa t'ollows: -6- Honorable w. Ii. Batas "'l'he appellant contends that there are certain records 1n the police depal"tment of a city which must be kept secret and tree trom common inspection aa a matter of public policy. 'l'hia is true. !he rule as stated in 23 R.O.L. 161, is ae follows: '!he right or inspection doea not a~end to all public records or doeu• menta, for public policy demands that same ot them, although ot a public nature, must be kept secret and tree fxtom common inspection,. sueh tor example as diplomatic co~spondenea and lette~s and despatchea 1n the detedtive po11ae service or otherviae relating to the apprehenai.on and prosecution ot criminals. '" On the basis of the foregoing authorities, it is our conclusion that thex-e is no right at common lAw which permits the public inSpection ot police recorda having to do w1 th the investigation of crime and the apprehension of ottenders and related police functions. Public polio¥ requires that such matters be kept eontident1al. With regard to the var.ious a4minia~ative reports or which you inquire, it does not appe-u that they mq properly be st)rled as "memorials of ott1c.1al actions" but relat._ prin• cj.pa.lly to the internal organt.zati.on and tunct1on1ng ot the Department. Ma.1nl;y they are in the nature ot interdepart- mental memoran4a and pet-eonnel and equipment reporta. It is our conclusion. therefore, that the common-law r~t of 1n- apeot1.on does not apply to these matters • CONCLUSlON I~ is the opinion of this ot"f'ice that the right ot inspection ot records of' the Kansae City Police Department provided under Section 109.180, llSMo 1959, extends only to those reoo.rds expressly required by law to be kept. 'lhe right ot inapeot1on at common law, ~ough broader than that provided by Section 109.180, contains an e%ception as to police recorda and, theretore, is also inapplicable. 'l'he foregoing opinion, whl.oh I hereby appl'"ove, waa prepared by my Ars sietant • .James J. M:urph;y. Yours very truly, THOMAS I • EJWLE'l'ON Attorney General