Topeka ? A Kansas Court of Appeals panel ruled Friday that a lower court was wrong to dismiss a Kansas City, Kan., woman’s open records request simply because the records were part of a criminal investigation, and it sent the case back to Wyandotte County for further hearings.

Trina Green filed the request in Wyandotte County under the Kansas Open Records Act.

According to her attorney, David Peterson, the case originated from an incident in February 2016 when Green’s son, William, was shot multiple times by officers from the Kansas City, Kan., Police Department and Wyandotte County Sheriff’s Office.

Peterson said no officers were charged in the shooting.

William Green survived the gunshots and was eventually charged in criminal court, Peterson said.

Online records from the Wyandotte County District Court indicate that a Willie Green was charged with felony counts of attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated assault using a deadly weapon and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer using a deadly weapon. Records show that incident occurred Feb. 4, 2016.

According to a story by Fox 4 News in Kansas City, an officer-involved shooting that day occurred outside a Dollar Tree store when a man allegedly tried to rob the store wielding a large knife. Officers first tried to subdue the man with a Taser, but when that proved ineffective, a sheriff’s deputy shot the man, who was then taken to a hospital in critical condition.

Trina Green sought access to the body-camera video of the incident. When her request was denied, she filed suit.

The Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan., objected, saying the tapes were part of an ongoing criminal investigation and citing an exception in the open records law relating to investigatory records.

The Unified Government asked the court to dismiss the case, saying Green “failed to state a proper claim for relief.” Wyandotte County District Judge Daniel A. Duncan granted that motion and dismissed the case “with prejudice,” meaning she could not file the case again, even after the investigation was closed.

A three-judge appellate court panel on Friday reversed that decision, saying what happened in district court was “strange” and holding that the exception for criminal investigation records is “not iron clad.”

In an opinion written by Judge Steve Leben, the appeals court said the Kansas Open Records Act provides that a district court “‘may order disclosure of such records, subject to such conditions as the court may impose, if the court finds that the disclosure is in the public interest; wouldn’t interfere with a law-enforcement investigation; wouldn’t reveal confidential sources, techniques, or agents; wouldn’t endanger anyone’s safety; and wouldn’t reveal any specific identifying information of the victim of a sexual offense (like the name or phone number of the victim).”

In dismissing Green’s case, Duncan said his decision was “based upon its findings and utilizing the discretion provided” under the law. But the appeals court said the lower court judge never mentioned what “findings” he made. Further, the court said, judges are not allowed to make findings of fact in a motion to dismiss, but instead are to assume that all the facts stated in the petition seeking the records are true.

“Green’s petition had alleged, with factual support, that disclosure was in the public interest and the responding agencies hadn’t offered an explanation as to how release of the records would interfere with their investigations,” the appeals court said. “In these circumstances, the district court would have the discretion to order disclosure of these records after consideration of the factors set out in (the Kansas Open Records Act). It abused its discretion by ruling without an evidentiary record and without weighing the statutory factors.”

Appeals Court Judges Anthony Powell and Kim Schroeder joined in the opinion.