Glassmeyer v. City of Columbia
Decision Date | 24 August 2016 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-404,Appellate Case No. 2014-002221 |
Parties | George S. Glassmeyer, Respondent, v. City of Columbia, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
W. Allen Nickles, III, of Nickles Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Lyndey Ritz Zwingelberg and Kirby Darr Shealy, III, both of Adams and Reese LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent.
City of Columbia (the City) appeals the trial court's declaration the City violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by failing to disclose to George Glassmeyer certain emails and other complaints made against the former police chief. The We affirm as modified.
1. We disagree with the City's argument the FOIA does not apply because the withheld documents did not deprive Glassmeyer of access to information regarding the "activities of their public officials."1 See Perry v. Bullock, 409 S.C. 137, 141, 761 S.E.2d 251, 253 (2014) (); New York Times Co. v. Spartanburg Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 374 S.C. 307, 311, 649 S.E.2d 28, 30 (2007) (). The documents contain allegations against the former City of Columbia Police Chief during his time in that office and, thus, regard the activities of a public official.
2. We agree with the trial court the City failed to present in a timely manner its argument the withheld documents were not submitted to the City of Columbia Police Department (the Department) according to its established procedures and, therefore, were not "complaints" as provided in the Department's Directives and Procedures Manual (the Manual). The City did not raise this issue until its motion to alter or amend. See Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388, 399, 608 S.E.2d 849, 854 (2005) ( ). The complaint alleged the City violated the FOIA by failing to disclose the documents, and Glassmeyer elaborated in his motion for summary judgment, in his memorandum opposing the City's motion for summary judgment, and at the summary judgment hearing the public's interest in knowing why theDepartment failed to investigate the allegations against, and/or discipline, the former police chief. The City had the opportunity to respond against the argument prior to the trial court's order granting summary judgment. Thus, the City's argument is not properly before this court.
3. We find the City abandoned its argument concerning disclosure of the family court documents. The City only challenges the trial court's ruling in a footnote and cites to no authority. See First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) ( ).
4. We find the remaining documents are not exempt from disclosure due to the privacy exemption. See S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(2) (2007) ( ); Burton v. York Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 358 S.C. 339, 352, 594 S.E.2d 888, 895 (Ct. App. 2004) ( ); Evening Post Publ'g. Co. v. City of N. Charleston, 363 S.C. 452, 457, 611 S.E.2d 496, 499 (2005) ( ); id. (). We find no merit to the City's contention it should not have to disclose the documents because they were anonymous emails, "unsolicited, unverified allegations referring to the former police chief's personal conduct, and third-party, unverified allegations of misconduct." Although some of the emails were from pseudonyms, the Manual provides the Department will investigate all citizen complaints, including anonymous ones. The allegations in the emails are "complaints" according to the Department's Citizen Complaint Process Policy's definition, which provides a complaint is "[a]n allegation of circumstance(s) mounting to a specific act or omission which, if proven true, would amount to employee misconduct." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial