Attorney alleges Slidell police failed to fully respond to records request
Video response challenges lawsuit, raises questions of political motives
Seuzeneau’s employment status questioned in petition
SLIDELL — A public records lawsuit involving St. Tammany Parish sheriff candidate Daniel Seuzeneau and the Slidell Police Department took a new turn Thursday when the attorney who filed the lawsuit asked a judge to move a scheduled hearing to a date before the Nov. 3 sheriff’s election, according to records on file with the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court.
The development follows a controversy that erupted on social media last week after Seuzeneau posted a video revealing his inclusion in a lawsuit and questioning its legitimacy.
In an amended petition filed Thursday, Oct. 15, attorney Dominick J. Latino III alleges that SPD failed to provide records or written explanations concerning 20 of the 40 categories in his original public records request. He also maintains that the department’s responses to the remaining categories were incomplete.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 30 in the 22nd Judicial District Court, concerns SPD’s handling of a request for records related to Seuzeneau’s nearly 20-year career with the department.
Download petition filed Sept. 30…
Download amended petition filed Oct. 15…
How the dispute began
According to court filings, Latino submitted his original request Sept. 10 through a contact form on SPD’s website. The request sought personnel and disciplinary records, outside-employment information, departmental communications and records concerning police vehicle purchases and leases.
Latino alleges that SPD did not respond within the time required by Louisiana Public Records Law — five business days.
On Sept. 18, he followed up using the same website form. This time, SPD responded, directing him to submit his request through a different online portal, according to the petition.
Latino complied, submitting the request through the designated portal and sending a physical copy by overnight delivery.
On Sept. 21, SPD acknowledged the request, describing it as “quite voluminous” and estimating that fulfilling it could take up to 14 business days.
Latino filed suit Sept. 30, alleging SPD had failed to comply with the law.
What Seuzeneau said
In an Oct. 9 Facebook video, Seuzeneau characterized the lawsuit as frivolous and questioned why he had been named as a respondent after resigning from SPD in July.
He said he contacted the Slidell city attorney and was informed that the requested records were available through SPD’s online portal.
According to Seuzeneau, Latino needed only to pay the required fee and download the documents.
Seuzeneau also defended his record of transparency, pointing to his years of working with journalists and responding to public records requests. He challenged anyone to find a member of the news media who would say he had not been transparent.
He also offered to publish the requested records on his own website, provided he was entitled to obtain them, so the public could examine his nearly 20-year career with SPD and draw its own conclusions.
Seuzeneau questioned why the request included records involving businessman Matt Bowers and police vehicle purchases. He defended the department’s purchasing practices, saying its vehicles were acquired through state contracts or an Enterprise leasing program.
He suggested political interests might be involved in the lawsuit, although he acknowledged having no proof of who might be responsible.
Why Seuzeneau was named in the lawsuit
Although Seuzeneau resigned as SPD’s chief administrative officer July 21 to run for sheriff, department records show he was appointed that same day to another position.
His resignation letter requested permission to continue serving in a volunteer capacity as Administrative Reserve — Special Assistant to the Chief. Police Chief Tommy Williams signed a personnel order appointing him to that position for an indefinite period.
During his July 21 public announcement of his candidacy for sheriff, Seuzeneau said he was resigning from SPD but made no mention of his request to continue serving the department in a volunteer capacity.
In his amended petition, Latino cites correspondence from Seuzeneau’s attorney asserting that his client had no formal connection to SPD after July 20. Latino argues that the personnel order contradicts that assertion and supports keeping Seuzeneau named in the lawsuit until his status and the identity of the department’s public records custodian are clarified.
The filing does not establish that Seuzeneau personally participated in handling the records request.
When were the records released?
The amended petition provides a more precise timeline.
According to an email reproduced in the filing, the City of Slidell notified Latino at 9:17 p.m. Oct. 9 that responsive records had been released through its online portal.
That was nine days after the lawsuit was filed and nearly a month after Latino says he submitted his original request.
Latino acknowledges in his petition that SPD produced records but disputes whether the production satisfied the request.
His amended petition alleges that entire categories of requested documents were omitted, including communications involving Bowers, records concerning outside employment and departmental vehicle purchasing information.
The petition also alleges that SPD failed to explain whether the missing records did not exist, were outside its custody or were being withheld under an exemption.
The department’s production included personnel records, departmental policies, incident reports and other documents, according to the filing.
Why the timing matters
Louisiana’s Public Records Law establishes procedures and deadlines for responding to records requests. Although agencies may need additional time to gather and review extensive records, they must comply with the law’s notification and disclosure requirements.
Louisiana’s Public Records Law generally allows any person to request public records, whether a journalist, political campaign representative, attorney or concerned citizen. A requester is not required to explain why the records are being sought, and public agencies must follow the same legal requirements for responding, regardless of the requester’s identity or motivation.
Latino maintains that the five-business-day response period began Sept. 10, when he says he submitted his original request through SPD’s website, rather than Sept. 18, when he was directed to a different records portal.
Latino argues that SPD’s eventual production does not resolve his allegations concerning delayed responses and missing records.
He is now asking the court to order production of the outstanding records or require SPD to provide written explanations identifying any applicable exemptions or confirming that particular records do not exist.
He also seeks attorney fees, court costs and civil penalties.
Court hearing scheduled after election
The case is currently scheduled for a hearing Nov. 4, one day after the special election for St. Tammany Parish sheriff.
Latino’s amended petition asks Judge Martin E. Coady to move the hearing to a date before the election, arguing that voters should have access to public records concerning a candidate before casting their ballots.
The filing cites a provision of Louisiana law requiring public records enforcement lawsuits to receive preferential consideration.
The judge has not yet granted the request to move the hearing.
Although a court document issued Oct. 9 is formally titled “Writ of Mandamus,” it directs SPD and the other named respondents to comply with the petition’s demands or appear in court to explain why they should not be required to do so.
It does not constitute a ruling that SPD violated Louisiana Public Records Law.
The central question remains whether SPD properly handled Latino’s request and whether additional records or explanations must be provided.
-30-
© 2026 Mandeville Daily. All rights reserved. Republishing permitted with attribution and link to the original article.
