An Orange Beach resident has refiled her civil lawsuit against the City of Orange Beach and some municipal staff after her public records request relating to a 911 call to the city's Coastal Resources building during Labor Day weekend 2024 was denied.

As previously reported by GCM, the 911 call gained attention leading up to August's municipal election after Mobile-based Lagniappe posted a series of stories looking into the incident from last year. The investigation asked whether Mayor Tony Kennon was the subject of the 911 call that was made when a woman reportedly saw a man on the office balcony naked and screaming at a woman. Kennon at the time called the accusations "untruths" and "embarrassing for me and my family, but mostly it's embarrassing to our community." The topic created heated discourse ahead of the election, which Kennon ultimately won to retain his seat atop the city's leadership.

On July 25, Orange Beach resident C.C. Dixon-Moreno filed a complaint against Kennon, now-retired Chief of Police Steve Brown, City Attorney Jamie Logan, City Clerk Renee Eberly and City Administrator and Finance Director Ford Handley. Her claim against Handley was "alleged, though unverified."

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 6. On Aug. 8, the city made a motion to dismiss the charges, citing Dixon-Moreno did not submit the request through the official channel, which is a form on the city's website. On Aug. 21, Dixon-Moreno responded in opposition. On Aug. 26, the city replied to her response, stating Dixon-Moreno "ignores the clear language" of the state's Public Records Act and that she cited cases that do not support her argument. It also says the emails she used as evidence "concern her decisions and actions not to make a proper request for public records under Alabama law."

On Sept. 2, Chief District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock granted the City of Orange Beach their motion to dismiss but also allowed Dixon-Moreno to refile an amended complaint before Oct. 2.

She refiled her lawsuit on Oct. 1. In the amended complaint, Dixon-Moreno is now only naming the City of Orange Beach, Kennon, Eberly and newly elected Interim Chief of Police Trent Johnson as plaintiffs.

"This case has always been about transparency, accountability and the public's right to see objective evidence of official conduct," Dixon-Moreno told GCM. "The amended complaint answers the court's call for a clearer and more structured pleading, and it lays out how the City of Orange Beach has relied on state law exemptions in ways that contradict both the Alabama Public Records Act and the U.S. Constitution."

The city said it does not have a comment regarding the case.

CHANGES FROM ORIGINAL LAWSUIT

Exhibits attached to Dixon-Moreno's original suit consisted of her communication with the city via email and certified mail.

In Exhibit A, sent on July 11, she sent a letter to Kennon and Logan via email and certified mail stating she had been blocked by Kennon on his official mayoral Facebook page. In her original claim, she said this violated her First Amendment rights, citing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lindke v. Freed (2024).

She told Kennon and Logan they had 48 hours to unblock her account and to issue written confirmation of her restored access. The complaint stated her access to the page was restored after about 47 hours.

When she refiled her lawsuit, she said this was "viewpoint-based blocking," which she said violates the First Amendment that "protects both speech and newsgathering."

In the amended complaint, she is listed as "an Alabama resident, citizen journalist and taxpayer who regularly reports on Orange Beach government and policing to a substantial local audience."

Exhibit B, sent on July 15, is a letter from Dixon-Moreno to Kennon, Logan and Brown where she requested full access to body camera footage, in-car and dashboard cameras used on the scene and all metadata logs, audit trails and CAD radio traffic associated with the police response to the 911 call last Labor Day.

Near the end of July, Gulf Coast Media filed a similar request via the Orange Beach website's public records request form. GCM's request was denied. Eberly, as city clerk and procurement officer, said the city's policy to not release body camera footage is supported by the state Supreme Court in Something Extra Publishing Inc. v. Mack (2021).

In this case, Something Extra Publishing and Lagniappe filed a complaint against then Baldwin County Sheriff Huey Hoss Mack, Col. Anthony Lowery and Lt. Michael Gaull, both from the sheriff's office, alleging they "improperly denied Lagniappe's request for public records in violation of the Open Records Act."

The city referred to Alabama Code 12-21-3.1(b), which states, "law enforcement investigative reports and related investigative material are not public records. Law enforcement investigative reports, records, field notes, witness statements and other investigative writings or recordings are privileged communications protected from disclosure."

According to her refile, on Sept. 3 Dixon-Moreno submitted a public records request through the city's portal for "ALL Camera Footage" of the incident.

Specifically, she requested "complete body-worn camera footage, in-car video, metadata logs, CAD radio traffic, vehicle inventory and AVL logs for supervisory units and a listing of all city and police department officials notified of or present at the Coastal Resources Building during the Sept. 2, 2024, domestic dispute incident."

She was denied body-worn and in-car camera footage, metadata and related CAD radio traffic. She received a similar message to GCM that cited Something Extra Publishing, Inc. v. Mack (2021).

According to the state's public records law, a public officer must acknowledge a public records request within 10 business days of receiving a request. A requestor to an executive-branch agency should wait two business days for an acknowledgement. A "substantive response," with either the records requested, a timeline for procurement or a denial with reasons stated, must then be given within 15 business days, though extensions can be made in 15-day increments with written notice.

This is not the only case of body camera footage being withheld, though other recent cases deal with much more serious subjects.

The family of an 18-year-old who was killed by police at a soccer park near Birmingham earlier this year has sparked debate on the topic of body camera footage when the police department has said it wouldn't show the footage to the teen's family.

The state Supreme Court case that ruled all police investigative material can be hidden from the public was made four years ago, and a state law was passed in 2023 that says they can choose whether to show footage to families.

"There is no mechanism to force law enforcement to produce the footage to family or anyone else," J. Evans Bailey, attorney for the Alabama Press Association, told AL.com regarding the case of Jabari Peoples. "This can and probably has led to situations where law enforcement will only voluntarily release footage when they think it makes them look good or supports their version of events."

Bills filed by Democratic state legislators to make body camera footage public record have not been successful.

MORE ON DIXON-MORENO LAWSUIT

In Exhibit C, on July 21 Dixon-Moreno filed another request for public records via letter to Eberly, Kennon, Logan and Brown. Her request was for Orange Beach Police Department (OBPD) vehicle GPS and AVL logs between July 21, 2024, and July 20, 2025.

She said this was due to allegations concerning Kennon's use of OBPD vehicles. Kennon previously told GCM his use of such vehicles was vetted by the ethics commission.

In the letter from July 21, she gave the city a 365-day response period for information on the use of supervisor vehicles.

In Exhibit D, also sent on July 21, she sent a letter to Eberly, Kennon, Logan and Handley requesting information on city personnel related to Kennon or one another.

She alleged reports exist surrounding city payroll that "may include close relatives of Mayor Tony Kennon" and married employees "sometimes work in direct chains of supervision."

She said the reports raise concerns under the state's nepotism provisions.
Section (c) of 41-1-5 states, "Any person within the fourth degree of affinity or consanguinity of a public employee shall not be the immediate supervisor for or in the chain of command of, or participate in the hiring, evaluation, reassignment, promotion, or discipline of the public employee within any state department, board, bureau, committee, commission, institution, corporation, authority or other agency of the state."

According to the Alabama Government Manual, municipalities are not listed as an agency of the state.

Section 36-21-1 of the Alabama Ethics Act is definitions of terms.

However, Section 36-25-5 concerns the use of official positions or offices for personal gain, stating, "Personal gain is achieved when the public official, public employee or a family member thereof receives, obtains, exerts control over or otherwise converts to personal use the object constituting such personal gain."

A preliminary scheduling order was requested with a meeting report due by Nov. 17.