STATE OF INDIANA IN THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT 3 COUNTY OF ELKHART CAUSE NO. 20003-0309-MR-0155 STATE OF INDIANA FILED DEC 22 2017 001/ 197]? VS. ORDER ANDREW ROYER This matter is currently before the Court on a request for access to the entire record of court proceedings in the herein above referenced case, formerly made pursuant to the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, 5-14-3?3, received by the Court on November 17, 2017. The Indiana Access to Public Records Act (the ?Act?) provides that it is the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. I. C. 5-14-3-1. However, the public?s right of access to public records is also subject to well?recognized exceptions under the Act. I. C. 5-14-3?4. Additionally, Ind. Admin R. 9, pursuant to the inherent authority of the Indiana Supreme Court and pursuant to I. C. specifically governs public access to, and confidentiality of, court records. This rule recognizes there are strong societal reasons for allowing public access to court records; however, Ind. Admin. R. 9 attempts to balance competing interests and recognizes that unrestricted access to certain information in court records could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or unduly increase the risk of injury to individuals and businesses. Ind. Admin. R. starts from the presumption of open public access to court records. In some circumstances, however, there are sound reasons for restricting access to certain records as detailed in Ind. Admin. R. It is also important to remember that, generally, at least some of the parties in a court case are not in court voluntarily, but rather have been brought into court by plaintiffs or by the government. A person who is not a party to the action may also be mentioned in the court record. Care should be taken that the privacy rights and interests of such involuntary parties or third parties are not unduly compromised. Commentary to Ind. Admin. Rule The Court has carefully reviewed the case file herein, and now orders the Clerk ofthe Court to provide access to and c0pies of the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) and documents contained in the file which are non-confidential and non-sealed records to the Petitioner Christian Sheckler of the South Bend Tribune as requested by him at his cost. Petitioner may also obtain a copy of the trial transcript in this cause by requesting the same from the Court Reporter at his cost. The Court, however, after reviewing Petitioner?s request and the subject case file, has determined that certain documents contained therein are either mandatorily or discretionarily excluded from disclosure. If undisclosed records fall within a mandatory exception listed under C. as a matter of law, those records shall not be disclosed. If the undisclosed records fall within a discretionary exception listed under 1. C. it is in the agency?s discretion not to disclose the records. Once the agency has demonstrated that undisclosed records fall within a discretionary exception under Section the burden shifts to the complaining party to demonstrate that the agency?s denial of his access to those records was arbitrary or capricious. l. C. An arbitrary and capricious decision is one which is patently unreasonable and is made without consideration of the facts and in total disregard of the circumstances and lacks any basis which might lead a reasonable person to the same conclusion. A.B. v. State, 949 1204, 1217 (Ind. 2011). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the following individual case records are exempt from disclosure on the grounds stated: - Reports of physical or mental examinations submitted to the Court in connection with sentencing (declared confidential by statute, I. C. 35-38- 1-13, therefore, exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. and LC. 5-14- 3-4lal(1ll; - Mental Health Consultation Requests and Evaluation documents (declared confidential by statute, l. C. 9? 16-39?3-10, therefore, exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. and l. C. and Also exempted pursuant to l. C. - Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports and accompanying memoranda (declared confidential by statute, I. {3 35?38-1-13, therefore, exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. and I. C. - Autopsy reports, photographs, video or audio recordings (exempted pursuant to I. C. - Witness Lists which include identifying information and addresses (exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. - Juror identification documents which include addresses; juror deliberation notes and questions (exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. - Victim information (exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. Law enforcement Incident/Investigation Reports and Supplemental case investigatory records (exempted pursuant to Ind. Code 5~ - Research and judicial notes; work product of court staff (exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin. R. - Indiana Department of Correction Authorization to Release Information (exempted pursuant Appellant Brief (exempted pursuant to I. C. as work product of an attorney representing, pursuant to state employment or an appointment by a public agency). Additionally, Petitioner may not at this time access or obtain copies of any evidentiary exhibits, including documents, photographs, recordings, etc., that were admitted at trial. Although trial evidence is accessible under Incl. R. Trial P. those materials are subject to the same scrutiny and confidentiality analysis as provided by Ind. Admin. R. Petitioner has requested the trial exhibits as a whole and in their entirety; therefore, has not complied with the particularity requirement of LC. The trial exhibits in this case necessarily include many ofthe same materials referenced above and are confidential for the reasons stated. Furthermore, any request for law enforcement recordings must comply with LC. 5-14- The Court is authorized under I.C. 5?15-3 and to seal public records that fall within an exception to the Act whether before or after they are admitted into evidence. See also, Bobrow v. Bobrow, 810 726, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). As Petitioner?s request for access to trial exhibits now stands, that request is denied. Moreover, the custody and disposition of exhibits is controlled by Local Rule Any material marked as an exhibit at trial, whether or not admitted into evidence, shall be held in the custody of the Court Reporter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This is to ensure that the trial record is preserved for any appeal. The Court is not confident that all appeal rights have been exhausted in the cause herein and, therefore, also declines to authorize the release of trial exhibits on that basis. It should be noted that the Local Rule also provides that all material placed in the custody of the Court Reporter may be removed by the offering party within four months after final disposition of the case, or be otherwise disposed of by Court order. Accordingly, the Court may not be in possession of the items sought by the Petitioner. The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to provide access to and copies of those records in the Clerk?s possession, including the Chronological Case Summary and all documents except those deemed to be confidential or that are sealed, to the Petitioner Christian Sheckler of the South Bend Tribune as requested by him at his cost. 7/;46/ DATED THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. (ma/M Hon. Teresa L. Cataldo, Judge Elkhart Superior Court 3