Crites v. Lewis & Clark Cnty. by and through County Attorney

• Decision Date: 16 July 2019
• Docket Number: DA 18-0372
• Citation: 396 Mont. 336,444 P.3d 1025,2019 MT 161
• Parties: Connie CRITES, in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of John Michael Crites, Petitioner and Appellant, v. LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, BY AND THROUGH its COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

396 Mont. 336

444 P.3d 1025

2019 MT 161

Connie CRITES, in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of John Michael Crites, Petitioner and Appellant,

v.LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, BY AND THROUGH its COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent and Appellee.

DA 18-0372

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: January 23, 2019

Decided: July 16, 2019

For Appellant: Jesse C. Kodadek, Worden Thane P.C., Missoula, Montana

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, J. Stuart Segrest, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Melissa Broch, Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana

Justice James Jeremiah Sheadelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1AppellantConnie Crites, in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of John Michael Crites(Estate), appeals the Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, denying the Estate’s Complaint and Petition (Petition) for Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI).We address the following issue on appeal:

Whether the District Court erred when it denied the Estate’s Petition for Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information without conducting an in camera review.

¶2We affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶3 In late May 2011, John Michael Crites was sued by his neighbors Dennis Shaw, John Mehan, and Katy Wessel.Shaw, Mehan, and Wessel sought compensatory and punitive damages after Crites allegedly threatened and accosted his neighbors in their neighborhood in Lewis and Clark County(County).

¶4 On June 28, 2011, Crites was reported missing.On October 8, 2011, Crites’s dismembered remains were found in black plastic trash bags near MacDonald Pass.Crites’s skull was later found on the west side of MacDonald Pass.To date, nobody has been charged with Crites’s murder.

¶5 On March 27, 2012, the County issued a death certificate for Crites.On April 19, 2012, Crites’s sister, Connie Crites, was appointed personal representative of his Estate.On January 9, 2018, the Estate requested that the County release Crites’s investigative file for the purposes of defending itself in the ongoing lawsuit and to pursue a civil wrongful death action.On January 19, 2018, the County responded to the Estate’s request with a letter from County Attorney Leo Gallagher that it could not release Crites’s investigative file because release "would jeopardize the State’s ability to prosecute someone for the homicide and the investigation is ongoing."

¶6 On March 9, 2018, the Estate filed a Petition in District Court, seeking release of the investigative file.The Estate requested, pursuant to § 44-5-303, MCA, the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, andArticle II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution that the District Court conduct an in camera review of the CCJI associated with Crites’s file and to release information under seal that is relevant to the Estate’s claims and defenses in the ongoing lawsuit.The County opposed the Estate’s request and argued that releasing CCJI to the Estate would compromise its investigation.In its response, the County submitted an affidavit from Detective Dan O’Malley that stated the Crites homicide investigation was active and ongoing.The affidavit further specified that the investigative file contained: ninety-five reports regarding Crites’s homicide investigation, totaling over 1000 pages of documents; at least twenty search warrants; thousands of phone records; multiple reports from the Montana State Crime Lab; digital evidence, including audio recordings and photographs; and interviews of dozens of people.

¶7 On June 19, 2018, the District Court denied the Estate’s Petition.The District Court determined that § 44-5-303, MCA, does not allow for the release of CCJI if the prosecutor determines dissemination would jeopardize an active investigation.Consequently, the District Court declined to conduct an in camera review of the CCJI contained in Crites’s investigative file.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8We review a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether the district court’s interpretation of the law is correct.Billings Gazette v. City of Billings , 2013 MT 334, ¶ 10, 372 Mont. 409, 313 P.3d 129(citingJefferson County v. Mont. Stand. , 2003 MT 304, ¶ 9, 318 Mont. 173, 79 P.3d 805 ).This Court"exercises plenary review over matters of constitutional interpretation."Nelson v. City of Billings , 2018 MT 36, ¶ 8, 390 Mont. 290, 412 P.3d 1058(citingCross v. VanDyke , 2014 MT 193, ¶ 5, 375 Mont. 535, 332 P.3d 215 ).

DISCUSSION

¶9Whether the District Court erred when it denied the Estate’s Petition for Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information without conducting an in camera review.

¶10 The Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979 (Act) sets forth the criteria that a district court employs when considering a motion for release of CCJI.See§ 44-5-303, MCA.CCJI may be disseminated only: (1) to another criminal justice agency; (2) to "those authorized by law to receive it"; and (3) to those a district court authorizes to receive it "upon a written finding that the demands of individual privacy do not clearly exceed the merits of public disclosure."Section 44-5-303(1), MCA.CCJI includes criminal justice information, records made confidential by law, and any other criminal justice information not clearly defined as public criminal justice information.Section 44-5-103(3), MCA.The Act allows for any individual or an organization to file an action for dissemination of CCJI that the individual or organization considers "appropriate and permissible."Section 44-5-303(6), MCA.

¶11Section 44-5-303(2), MCA, grants an exception to the general dissemination provision contained in § 44-5-303(1), MCA.Section 44-5-303(2), MCA, provides: "If the prosecutor determines that dissemination of [CCJI] would not jeopardize a pending investigation ... the information may be disseminated to a victim of the offense by the prosecutor or by the investigating law enforcement agency after consultation with the prosecutor."

¶12 When conducting an in camera review of CCJI, a district court is required to balance the conflict between the "right to know" and the "right to privacy" to determine whether dissemination of CCJI is warranted.Mont Const. art. II, §§ 9,10;§ 44-5-303(1), MCA; see also Mont. State Fund v . Simms , 2012 MT 22, ¶ 21, 364 Mont. 14, 270 P.3d 64;Lincoln Cty. Comm’n v. Nixon , 1998 MT 298, ¶¶ 26-28, 292 Mont. 43, 968 P.2d 1141;Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman , 260 Mont. 218, 229, 859 P.2d 435, 442(1993).

¶13The party requesting CCJI must make an initial showing in its petition that it is authorized by law to receive the sought-after material.Bozeman Daily Chronicle , 260 Mont. at 224, 859 P.2d at 439(citingIn re Lacy , 239 Mont. 321, 325-26, 780 P.2d 186, 188-89(1989) ).If the requesting party makes that initial showing, the burden then shifts to the State to demonstrate that the requested CCJI should not be released because the rights of individual privacy outweigh the merits of public disclosure.Bozeman Daily Chronicle , 260 Mont. at 227, 859 P.2d at 441(citingIn re Lacy , 239 Mont. at 325-26, 780 P.2d at 188-89 ).After conducting an in camera review of the CCJI sought, the district court may authorize release of appropriate portions of the requested CCJI. Section44-5-303(1), MCA;Bozeman Daily Chronicle , 260 Mont. at 229, 859 P.2d at 442.

¶14 The Estate filed a petition arguing it was entitled to the CCJI in Crites’s investigative file under Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution and as a person seeking dissemination pursuant to § 44-5-303(6), MCA.The County responded to the Estate’s request with a letter indicating that the County believed release of CCJI related to the Crites investigation would jeopardize its investigation.The County submitted an affidavit in its response to the Estate’s Petition that demonstrated Crites’s investigative file was extensive.

¶15 Based on the County’s assertion that release of the information would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, the District Court concluded that § 44-5-303, MCA, did not allow the Court to release the information.In its Order on Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information, the District Court interpreted § 44-5-303(2), MCA, to provide that "[i]f eitherthe Court’s analysis favors privacy or if the prosecutor determines that the dissemination would jeopardize the investigation, the statute does not allow the information to be released."(Emphasis in original.)The District Court thus concluded that since the prosecutor had determined that release of the information would jeopardize the investigation, it "need not reach the analysis of balancing the merits of privacy and disclosure ...."

¶16The District Court’s conclusion that § 44-5-303(2), MCA, prohibited it from releasing CCJI over a prosecutor’s determination that dissemination would jeopardize an ongoing investigation is incorrect.Section 44-5-303(2), MCA, allows a prosecutor to disseminate CCJI to the victim of an offense without obtaining the district court authorization that would otherwise be required by § 44-5-303(1), MCA, if the prosecutor determines that dissemination would not jeopardize a pending investigation or other criminal proceeding.Section 44-5-303(2), MCA, acts as an exception to the restrictions regarding the dissemination of CCJI set forth at § 44-5-303(1), MCA.

Section 44-5-303(2), MCA, does not allow the prosecutor to supersede the district court’s decision to allow for CCJI dissemination when the requesting party is a victim.Such an interpretation of the statute would lead to the incongruous result in which any person or organization could conceivably obtain CCJI via district court order pursuant to § 44-5-303(1), MCA, but § 44-5-303(2), MCA, could deprive a crime victim of the same right, if the prosecutor asserted that dissemination would...