PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Do you have an opinion about this opinion? Share it with us and the community in a letter to the editor! Letters may be submitted using this link: https://forms.gle/RmdQfYe86PtkTKp8A.

The Missouri Sunshine Law, enacted in 1973, declares Missouri’s commitment to openness in government, and there have been some interesting changes this year to the way some records are handled.

Probably the biggest change came very early in the year, when files like probable cause statements for criminal charges became publicly accessible on CaseNet without the need for a login. Previously, when I wanted to report a crime story, I would have to go to the Barry County Judicial Center to use the public access computer. I wrote down my case numbers and names I thought may be worthy of stories, then would look up and print out physical copies of each PC to take back to the office.

I still have a hefty stack of these files dating back to 2018, which I keep just in case a situation arises and I might need them. That happens very, very rarely, but it has.

Now, the process is much simpler, and has actually helped me improve crime coverage. I used to keep a close eye on the jail roster and source crime stories from there. However, with the jail closed and the roster “offline for maintenance,” I had to change course.

It was fortunate timing on CaseNet’s part. It takes me a bit longer, but I now bring up every criminal charge filed each week and download PCs for the stories I intend to cover, if there are any.

The change to wider public access did come with some stipulations, like information that may be redacted and less identifying information regarding victims.

Circuit clerks’ offices operate differently county by county, and I am happy to say Barry County has not over-redacted information like some of my colleagues have seen in other counties.

I have seen some PCs so heavily redacted it would be difficult to write a story from it at all. We do not have that problem, and for that, I am grateful.

I have just two complaints when it comes to PCs now. First is the change in how victims are referenced, specifically if the victim is an entity. When it comes to crimes against persons, victim information isn’t entirely necessary. I wrote a story recently about a man who allegedly assaulted an elderly man on his property in a dispute over his treatment of a dog chasing a school bus. I knew days before penning the piece who the victim was, but in the story, naming him specifically is not necessary.

I also did not release the name of last week’s domestic violence victim until the Barry County Sheriff’s Office released it. I have learned through a few crime story situations in the last 10 years here that a healthy dose of compassion in my reporting timing and phrasing is the best practice for a small-town publication. I care less and less these days if I am first. Instead, I’m driven to report the story correctly and with regard to the victims and their families.

If the victim is an entity, however, say a business that’s been burglarized or property that has been damaged, “a business within the limits of Barry County” is the only identification we now get. In those situations, especially if there are trends, you the people have a right to know where issues are occurring, if nothing else to be informed and aware of what may be happening in your community.

My other complaint is that birthdays are on the list of items that are redacted. CaseNet lists a year of birth, but not a specific date, and there is no longer any age information on PC statements themselves. This can present a challenge in properly identifying an individual in a story, especially in the case of common names.

For instance, I know there are two individuals named Daniel Boyd who live in Barry County, one of whom is the sheriff. Should the other Daniel Boyd find himself in legal trouble, the opportunity for a news agency to mistake him for the sheriff is greater now, because there’s less overall identifying information available for journalists to independently verify identities.

This leads into the other major change in information access this year. On Nov. 1, the Missouri State Highway Patrol removed names from wreck reports online. According to Dan Curry, our Missouri Press Association attorney, MSHP believes the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act applies to names in crash reports, directing journalists to file DPPA requests for the records and pay a flat fee.

This flies in the face of the Sunshine Law, which mandates law enforcement “incident reports,” which include names, “shall be open.” This also applies to “logs” — precisely what the MSHP crash report site is.

Like in the case of ages in PCs, this lack of information can make identifying individuals difficult, or impossible. One thing I have always done is cross-referenced wreck reports with arrest reports. Sometimes, accidents with injury are caused by drunk drivers, and in those situations, many are repeat offenders.

That is information the public should have a right to know, but without names on wreck reports, I cannot be 100% sure I can match an arrest report to a wreck. I can assume if the individual’s age is the same on both reports and the reports were filed within a couple of hours of one another that the person in the arrest report is responsible for the wreck — but you know what they say about assuming.

It’s a liability to report without 100% of the information, and if I did assume and got it wrong, I could be sued. And, I should be.

News reporting, especially crime and anything related to law enforcement, must be factual and precise.

I hope the shade being cast over the Sunshine Law this year will not diminish my ability to achieve those goals.

Kyle Troutman has served as editor of the Cassville Democrat since 2014 and owner/publisher since 2023. He was named William E. James/Missouri Outstanding Young Journalist for daily newspapers in 2017, and he is a two-time ISWNE Golden Dozen award winner. He may be reached at 417-847 2610 or ktroutman@cassville- democrat.com.