Stoddard County Sheriff Carl Hefner
KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment finding that the Stoddard County Sheriff knowingly violated Missouri’s Sunshine Law by refusing to release body camera footage showing a deputy shooting and killing a family’s dog, and ordered the case returned to the trial court for an award of additional attorney fees on appeal.
The appellate court rejected all arguments raised by the sheriff and left intact a judgment requiring him to pay a civil penalty, attorney fees and deposition costs totaling $6,317.50.
In a February 4 decision, the court upheld findings from a bench trial in Stoddard Circuit Court that the sheriff, Carl Hefner, intentionally blocked access to the video despite a lawful records request made under the Sunshine Law.
The footage was sought by The Oliver Firm, which represented the Pennington family after their nine-year-old black lab mix, Parker, was shot and killed by a Stoddard County deputy on Aug. 27, 2023.
The deputy was wearing a body camera at the time of the shooting, and the video became the focus of the legal dispute.
The Pennington family’s dog became disoriented during a storm and was later picked up by the deputy after a neighbor contacted the sheriff’s department, according to the court’s opinion.
The dog was transported to a remote area, where the deputy opened the patrol vehicle door, allowed the dog to exit, and then shot it after calling for it to sit.
The dog was shot a second time several minutes later and left in a ditch. The body camera recording captured the incident.
Two days after the shooting, the Oliver Firm submitted a written Sunshine Law request seeking all body-worn camera footage created by the deputy on the date of the incident.
The sheriff’s department released two unrelated videos but refused to provide the recording involving the dog’s killing, citing an alleged active investigation.
The firm subsequently filed suit, asserting the refusal violated the Sunshine Law and seeking not only release of the video but also a civil penalty and attorney fees.
The appellate court noted that the sheriff’s department itself did not conduct a criminal investigation, instead referring the matter to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, which declined to investigate.
The file was later forwarded to the Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, where an investigator reviewed reports and the video and drafted a probable cause affidavit, though no charges were filed.
The bodycam video was ultimately released to the Oliver Firm in April 2024, nearly eight months after the original request, and it was provided by the prosecutor’s office, not by the sheriff.
Despite the late release, the trial court found the sheriff’s actions amounted to a knowing violation of the Sunshine Law, concluding he intentionally delayed disclosure and failed to follow statutory procedures that require either releasing the record or seeking a court order within 30 days to justify closure.
The trial court assessed a $500 civil penalty, awarded $5,000 in attorney fees and ordered payment of $817.50 in deposition costs.
It also ruled that the sheriff’s later-filed counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment on disclosure obligations was moot.
On appeal, the sheriff argued the case was moot because the video had eventually been released, that the Sunshine Law did not authorize a civil penalty in this context, and that the attorney fees and costs were excessive.
The appellate court rejected each argument, finding the case was not moot because the lawsuit also sought statutory penalties and fees, which remained live issues even after disclosure.
The court further held that the Sunshine Law explicitly allows civil penalties and attorney fee awards for knowing violations and that the amounts ordered by the trial court were not unreasonable or an abuse of discretion.
The appeals court also granted the Oliver Firm’s motion for attorney fees incurred during the appeal, citing provisions of the Sunshine Law that require public bodies to bear such costs when their actions are found unjustified.
The case was remanded to the trial court solely to determine the appropriate amount of those appellate fees.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District case number: SD38762
