—BREAKING NEWS…BREAKING NEWS…BREAKING NEWS…

–Four straight days, 4 straight stories, exactly ZERO public interest!

–Meanwhile, this administration gets away with lawlessness, strong-arming the press, and looking ridiculous in foreign-affairs. [See him get dissed by the Russians? See him trip over that threshold? See him jump at that 21 gun salute when the first shot went off? Of course not...nobody in the MSM is reporting it.]

–The P.D. presses cloyingly along, with their nose stuck up Obama’s arse, as the bus they share gets closer to edge of the cliff.

“Sometimes it feels like governments set the price of public records as a way to reduce public access.”

I’d pretty much agree with your suspicion of reducing access, and with “it’s none of their beeswax”, (although it seldom pays to argue with police).

Other reasons might be that all municipalities need cash these days, and they have got what you want, so they will set the price.

Also did you call in advance to obtain the records, and pick them up later in the day, or where you there in person waiting? If they had to put someone on the records request right away for you, then I could understand the cost even more.

Sorry, I meant “were” not “where”

I’d contact the Missouri Attorney General’s Office regarding this. Per its website, a governmental agency — unless there’s an exception for police departments — can only charge 10 cents per copy. If pulling of older reports or added research is involved, they can charge for the time involved, times what they pay their lowest paid clerk. I’m sure police departments routinely break state law regarding this. The P-D should investigate.

Doc… I find this topic very interesting. Please, speak only for yourself.

I believe that is what I am doing. Liberals are only allowed to speak for everyone, I understand.

I, too, appreciate this topic. Open government is a cornerstone of democracy.
I don’t get the $30 for for “research, location, retrieval, and review.” Are they saying it took someone making $10/hour 3 hours to find the record in question?
If so, that doesn’t speak very highly of the organization of records at the Kirkwood PD. It also speaks poorly that these types of records are not electronically stored for easier access (not just for reporters and other inquiries, but for the police officers themselves).

Dr. Bunk,
Actually when you say “zero public interest” you are taking for everyone. Those are your words, so no one is putting words in your mouth.

But, what it comes down to is if this blog post doesn’t interest you read one of the other 10 million blogs that are out there. I am sure at least one or two might suit your fancy.

Ooooops. That should be “talking for everyone” not taking. Well, actually I guess it should be speaking. So not just typo but misuse of words on my part.

I’m sure it varies depending on the department and how computerized their offices are, but a standard police report, especially one that’s current, shouldn’t take more than a minute to produce. Requests for statistics or complex data compilations are something else entirely. I doubt many desk duty cops are fluent in SQL.

Still, public agencies love to dither around with stuff like this and come up with all sorts of fanciful scenarios for either denying record requests outright or charging nonsense fees. I have zero sympathy for that practice.

“Actually when you say “zero public interest” you are taking for everyone.”–Suzyjaxx

Actually I was making an observation. It has been a running conversation on multiple threads. My bad, didn’t mean to “talk for everyone”. That is for liberals.

The incident report is public record, regardless if an arrest has been made. A police department has 72 hours to make the report available if someone wants to see it. Whether the request needs to be made in writing or just verbally depends on the individual department’s policy; that is my understanding. I know several people who’ve claimed that a particular police department has told them that an incident report wasn’t a public record because the case was still being investigated. This is wrong, and runs counter to the state’s Sunshine Law dealing with open records. This same police department, via its records clerk, claimed that I wouldn’t be able to view a particular incident report because it involved a juvenile. Because of this, she claimed, it wasn’t a public record. I had to inform her — someone who should have already known this — that the report was in fact a public record; the juvenile’s identity, on the other hand, wasn’t public information. I explained to her the identity could be blocked out with black marker.

I really believe the P-D should look into this. There seems to be a lot of ignorance with police departments regarding the state’s Sunshine Law as it pertains to records. Either that, or police just relish the power of being able to blow smoke up people’s butts.

There is another aspect of the issue involved here. What about when insurance companies want a copy of an accident report? What are they charged? Are police departments treating insurance companies as a cash cow in this regard? If so, surely this cost is passed on to insurance policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

The editorial hacks at the PD are whining about the cost of public records? Give me a break. Complaining about $36 being a lot of money yet endorse trillions in tax increases on the backs of working Americans. What hypocrites. If you don’t want to tell them why you want it, don’t order it. If Obama mandated that records cost $1000 per page you would be shouting from the mountaintop that every taxpayer should be forced to order needless copy after needless copy.