Double Mountain Chronicle filed mandamus action seeking court-enforced disclosure
When the process of submitting public information requests failed to produce those records, Double Mountain Chronicle Editor Jeff Hurt turned to the courts.
Hurt filed a lawsuit citing Fisher County Sheriff John Patrick 'Pat' Dickson as the defendant in the 32nd Judicial District Court of Fisher County, which will be heard in court on April 29.
'This action seeks narrow mandamus relief compelling production of discrete public records already determined to be public by the Office of the Attorney General,' the orig-
'We have no choice but to order the requested information released.'
— ASSISTANT AG BLAKE BRENNAN, OR2025-044477 inal petition states.
Hurt followed the procedure required by the Texas Public Information Act.
His initial request went directly to Dickson on Sept. 18.
The newspaper requested 'among other items, 'Vehicle GPS tracking data for all Fisher County Sheriff's Department vehicles for the period July 1, 2025, to present,'' according to the lawsuit documentation.
On Sept. 26, Fisher County Attorney Morgan M. Brooks submitted a letter to Hurt that acknowledged the information request and informed Hurt the county was challenging the portion of the request concerning the GPS data to the state AG's office.
The submission to the OAG, also dated Sept. 26, made the claim that Dickson was concerned the 'release could reveal sensitive information about patrol patterns, response times, investigative activities, law enforcement strategies and could jeopardize officer safety.'
The other requested information was released on the same day.
Hurt was contacted by the attorney general's office on Dec. 12, which said the Sheriff's Office had made the claim based on Gov-ernment Code 552.108, but failed to provide 'a copy of the specific information requested or representative samples, labeled to in-dicate which exemptions apply to which parts of the documents.'
That procedural issue, Assistant Attorney General Blake Brennan said in his decision, means the information is to be made pub-lic.
'Because the sheriff's office has not submitted the requested information for our review, we have no basis for finding any of the information at issue excepted from disclosure,' the decision reads. 'Thus, we have no choice but to order the requested infor-mation released.'
At that point, the sheriff's department had the opportunity to sue to withhold the information as a challenge to the ruling by the AG's office.
Dickson emailed Brooks on Jan. 13 'acknowledging the Attorney General's opinion to release data to Plaintiff and stating he had reached out to TAC Legal for guidance and would file his own request for an Attorney General opinion,' according to the Writ of Mandamus.
On Feb. 2, Hurt sent an email to Dickson, copying Brooks, about the information.
Hurt asked whether the county had filed a suit, 'and if so, the cause number,' or, 'if no suit was filed, the specific date and time the requested GPS records will be produced, and the format/ delivery method you plan to use.'
On Feb. 4, Dickson emailed Hurt about filing his own request to the OAG.
On Feb. 6, Hurt filed the lawsuit. Dickson filed a written response with the district court on March 16 concerning the lawsuit.
In it, he said he did not want to provide the automatic vehicle locator data, which he said was because of 'concerns about confi-dentiality of peace officer's residences being revealed, as well as the address of confidential informants and others who have a le-gitimate concern about retaliation or those plotting to determine any patrol patterns that can be determined to help someone avoid interaction with law enforcement,' he wrote.
He said he did not know the timing or contents of the appeal to the OAG filed by Brooks, saying that was the reason the needed information was not submitted to the attorney general's office.
'After several days, Mr. Hurt appeared at the Sheriff's office with a letter from the Attorney Generals [sic] Office stating that be-cause I had not filed within a certain period, that the data was to be released to Mr. Hurt,' Dickson wrote.
Dickson refused, he wrote, because the letter Hurt presented was addressed to Hurt alone.
'I also informed Mr. Hurt that I would request my own opinion from the Attorney General since confidentiality of my peace of-ficer's addresses was deemed somehow inconsequential,' Dickson wrote, adding that he had not received a response to his own request by March 16.
Dickson added that he believed Hurt wanted the data to determine Fisher County Sheriff candidate Robert Castilleja's residential address.
Dickson pointed to the Chronicle questioning whether Castilleja meets the residency requirements to run for sheriff, saying, 'This proves to me Mr. Hurt was trying to use his TPIA to circumvent the Confidentiality Information outlined in the Government Code and the directives of the Secretary of State of the State of Texas.'
He further said Brooks did not tell Dickson he had 10 days to respond to the OAG's ruling, appealing that ignorance of the law means he should not be held responsible for not following the procedure.
He also argued in the response that the county clerk would have to verify that Castilleja can run.
'Mr. Hurt should just accept that the County Clerk certified the eligibility of Sergeant Castilleja without this attempt to influence the election by seeking to disqualify a candidate for office,' Dickson wrote.
That same day, Hurt filed a combined response to defendant's written response and motion to strike, saying Dickson question-ing Hurt's motives has no impact on the sheriff's responsibility to release the information.
'Because the motive of a requestor has no legal bearing on whether information is public, these claims are immaterial and im-pertinent,' Hurt's response said. 'Plaintiff moves the Court to strike all references to the upcoming sheriff's election and Plaintiff's alleged intent.'
He also cited Dickson's admission of missing the 10-day window and the law's definition that failure to timely challenge 're-sults in the information being presumed public' and that missing the deadline means the 'defendant has waived his right to assert the confidentiality exceptions he now raises.'
Hurt further explained the request was for 'the location data of county-owned vehicles, not private residences,' and that the sensitive data—and sensitive data alone—could be redacted but the material must be released.
Two days later, on March 18, the county filed that Dickson 'denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff's Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus (TPIA) and demands strict proof thereof.'
A hearing is set for 9 a.m. April 29 in Judge Glen Harrison's court.