As the 2011 session of North Carolina's General Assembly kicks off this week, we see the first (and likely not the last) salvo seeking to curtail access to public records in North Carolina. Representatives of the Durham Police Department have persuaded the N.C. Association of County Commissioners to lobby the legislature to revise North Carolina's Public Records Act so that it no longer provides unfettered access to 911 tapes. Instead, police departments would have to provide only written transcripts of recordings or recordings that obscure or distort the caller's voice.
As currently drafted, N.C. Gen. Stat. s. 132-1.4(c)(4) specifically provides for access to 911 recordings, stating that the following "shall be public records":
The contents of "911" and other emergency telephone calls received by or on behalf of public law enforcement agencies, except for such contents that reveal the name, address, telephone number, or other information that may identify the caller, victim, or witness.
Such tapes offer an important newsgathering source for media organizations, not just with respect to criminal conduct and emergency events but also with respect to the performance of 911 call operators.
The motivation for seeking a change in this law is apparently a particular instance in which a 911 call was aired on television, and the caller was recognized by voice and subsequently stopped cooperating with Durham police after being threatened. The problem with this approach to lawmaking is that it would have access to 911 records for everyone turn on the peculiarities of an exceptional circumstance. We've seen this same sort of argument made before with respect to autopsy records, and we've reported on similar rationales given for restricting access to 911 calls in other jurisdictions. These arguments allow the tail to wag the dog when it comes to access to government records.
The argument in this particular case also ignores the presence of a safety valve. In this case, if a police department truly felt that a cooperating witness would be placed in harm's way if a 911 recording were made available, the department could seek a court order under N.C. Gen. Stat. s. 132-1.4(e) to restrict access to the recording and to permit the department instead to provide a written transcript of the call. Thus, the law as currently written has a mechanism for addressing the truly exception situations in which the Durham police department's concern is triggered, while preserving unrestricted access in the vast majority of cases in which that concern does not arise. The General Assembly should retain this sensible approach.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- Education
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Court Dockets
- Access to Search Warrants
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services