Indiana DOC Found in Violation of State Public Records Act for Withholding Execution Drug Cost Information
by Chuck Sharman
On February 27, 2026, an Indiana court found the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC) in violation of its Access to Public Records Act (APRA), granting summary judgment to the Indiana Capital Chronicle in its challenge to the DOC’s refusal to divulge the amount paid for a lethal drug used to execute state prisoners.
The Chronicle asked the DOC in June 2024 to provide documentation of the cost it paid for pentobarbital; as PLN reported, that was the choice for a controversial single-drug execution protocol once the state decided to resume executions in December 2024, following a 15-year hiatus. [See: PLN, Feb. 2025, p.37.] The DOC repeatedly denied the request, saying that the information could be used to identify the seller who supplied the drug, in violation of another state law shielding that information from public disclosure.
Efforts to hide execution details have proliferated in recent years, as drug manufacturers restrict the use of their products in killings. That has driven some states to absurd lengths to find lethal drugs, as PLN has also reported; to carry out the 2012 execution of Richard Leavitt, the Idaho DOC’s then-Director Josh Tewalt reportedly chartered a flight to Tacoma carrying a briefcase with $10,000 in cash and exchanged it for the drugs in a Walmart parking lot. [See: PLN, Dec. 2022, p.50.]
The Chronicle filed suit in January 2025 in state Superior Court for Marion County, accusing the DOC of violating the APRA. Though the DOC had eventually responded in October 2024 with a heavily redacted invoice indicating that $900,000 was paid, the information was provided “without context,” as the Court noted. That response was not only insufficient, moreover, but also late by over 100 days, the Court continued. Documentation of an additional $100,000 paid for pentobarbital in the state’s most recent execution was also provided just before the Court’s ruling issued.
The DOC insisted that disclosing more information risked identifying the seller of the execution drugs, in violation of Ind. Code § 35-38-6-1(f). But the Court wasn’t buying that. Quoting the APRA, Ind. Code § 5-14-3-1, the Court said that “[a] fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees.”
Summary judgment was, therefore, granted to the Plaintiff on its claim. The Chronicle was represented by attorney Kurt Cundiff of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP). See: States Newsroom, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., Ind. Super. (Marion Cty.), Cause No. 49D04-2501-PL-003330.
The RCFP filed another case on behalf of the Chronicle and four other media outlets, including the Associated Press, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the DOC’s refusal to invite media representatives to executions. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied by the district court in May 2025. An appeal to that decision is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and PLN will continue to update developments in that case. See: Assoc. Press v. Neal, USCA (7th Cir.), Case No. 25-02025.
Additional source: Indiana Capital Chronicle
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login