Alabama Supreme Court Rules Law Enforcement Can Withhold Almost All Records Indefinitely

from the everything-is-an-investigation-when-you're-a-cop dept

Here's what you need to know about Alabama and its public records laws before we head to a depressing state Supreme Court opinion that makes everything worse:

Alabama has one of the weakest public records laws in the nation. Public bodies are not required to respond to requests from citizens and can charge exorbitant fees for producing documents. The only way to force an agency to produce a public document it refuses to release is to file a lawsuit.

As this opinion [PDF] shows, filing a lawsuit doesn't work either. Here's a summary of what the case involved, as well as its disappointing outcome, via the Montgomery Advertiser.

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a Mobile media outlet seeking law enforcement files related to a fatal police shooting, sparking a fervent dissent from the court's own chief justice regarding the state's public records law.

The court upheld a Baldwin County ruling in the case, in which Lagniappe Mobile sued for investigative records from the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office related to the 2017 shooting of motorist Jonathan Victor. The high court ruled the records Lagniappe sought, including dash and body camera footage from the shooting, are all exempted from open records law due to their "investigative" nature, even though the investigation in the shooting has been closed.

That's right. The court said records that merely documented what had happened -- essential to an investigation but not investigatory records as most people would define the term -- can be withheld forever simply because they were once part of an investigation. Closing an investigation does not prevent law enforcement agencies from withholding records under the investigative privilege exemption.

This is, of course, an abhorrent translation of the state's public records statutes by the state's top court. It completely undermines the presumption of openness that guides public records laws, even those as terrible as Alabama's.

The dissent, written by Chief Justice Tom Parker, excoriates the majority for deciding the state's laws give state law enforcement permission to withhold almost all records forever. A long discussion of the majority's misreading of the statue culminates with this succinct summary:

Putting the pieces together from the above textual and precedential analysis, I believe that the best interpretation of "related investigative material" is as follows. "[R]elated investigative material" includes only records, created by law-enforcement officers, that reflect their efforts in an investigation. It does not include records that merely document an incident or records that are merely part of a process of observation and information collection.

As Justice Parker sees it, the investigative privilege exemption cannot possibly cover the camera footage sought by the newspaper as its nothing more than recorded observation. It also shouldn't have been given blanket coverage to other records sought, like coroner's reports (which are not compiled by law enforcement officers) or communications related to the case (because not all communications would be of an investigatory nature). But the Supreme Court said everything requested could be denied under this exemption.

Justice Parker says court precedent requires the court to define exemptions narrowly. Here, the court has done the opposite, expanding it to cover almost any record created, compiled, or held by a law enforcement agency.

The sweep of those pronouncements is breathtaking. In essence, all evidence in the possession of law-enforcement agencies, whether created by the agency or received from others, is now exempt from citizens' statutory right to access public records. Whatever that interpretation of the statute can be called, it cannot be called a narrow construction in favor of open records that Allen requires. [...] Under today's decision, to be exempted, a record need only be given to law-enforcement personnel and be somehow "related," no matter how tenuously, to a criminal investigation.

As Parker points out, the government officials being sued didn't even try to argue the statute provided coverage this broad. This is from the Sheriffs' brief:

To be clear, the [Sheriffs] are not asserting that [the investigative-privilege statute] provides a blanket exception for any and all materials that have been gathered by a law enforcement entity during the course of an investigation. Clearly, such a position would run afoul of this Court's instruction that the exception[] set forth in [the statute] should be narrowly construed. [Allen], 32 So. 3d at 1271.

But that's what the state's top court decided they should have: a blanket exception that denies the public access to almost every law enforcement record.

Justice Parker's dissent signoff is furious:

With one sweeping stroke, today's decision spells the end of public access to law-enforcement records that are connected in any way to an investigation. Hidden now from the public eye are body-cam videos, dashcam videos, 9-1-1 recordings, and anything else that is remotely connected to a crime or even potential crime. After today, as to law-enforcement agencies at least, the statute might as well be titled the Closed Records Act.

The special concurrence's protestations do nothing to lighten this heavy shroud. Of course government agencies are free to disclose records voluntarily, but that is not the point of the Open Records Act. Like law in general, the Act exists to compel people to do what they will not do voluntarily. So the fact that some people do not need the prod of the law in no way lessens the harm of removing that prod from those who do.

As furious as it is, it does nothing to change the new status quo. Justice Parker knows this, but isn't going to let this terrible decision escape the courthouse without noting his disappointment.

I cannot sit idly by while this Court shrinks a legal right of the people of Alabama to the vanishing point. And I especially cannot do so when that shrinkage flies in the face of text and precedent.

This leaves it up to the legislature to repair the damage done by the court. But Alabama has had terrible public records laws for years so it seems unlikely state legislators are in any hurry to make them better, much less decide they know better than the state highest court on how the current laws should be interpreted or altered.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: alabama, law enforcement, public records, records, transparency


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Oct 2021 @ 4:07pm

    Alabama, everything is investigated but nothing is ever found

    And like that every single record produced or obtained by a police department in Alabama will be from this point onward refereed to as 'related to an investigation' and therefore exempt from disclosure.

    Police shootings? Part of an investigation.

    Police spending? Being investigated.

    Potential misconduct? You guessed it, everything involved is part of an investigation.

    At this point the Alabama SC might as well be honest in their corruption and state outright that the public has no right to know anything the police have said or done as they are above reproach or inquiry.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2021 @ 4:38pm

    Alabama -- another hell hole, now with blanket immunity for police.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 12 Oct 2021 @ 8:02pm

      Re:

      Alabama - codifying qualified immunity, one court case at a time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Oct 2021 @ 4:12am

      Re:

      "another hell hole"

      This is hardly new. Much of Alabama still hasn't fully caught up with the idea that Jim Crow is no longer a thing. School segregation statistics in that and many other southern states are...interesting in that regard.

      Ironically residents of those parts keep being the first to say "Racism? What racism?".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 12 Oct 2021 @ 5:49pm

    Alabama.

    Obvious corruption is obvious.

    Let me guess, the judge also likes to wear pointy white hats.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Oct 2021 @ 6:18pm

    They lengths the Justices will go to hide the dash cam footage of them being picked up for pandering, DUI, buying drugs...
    I mean why else would they rule in such an insane way unless they were desperate to hide their own sins?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 12 Oct 2021 @ 7:41pm

      Re:

      The sad thing is that would at least make such open corruption make some sense as it would be personally motivated, without that you're just left with them deciding that police don't have to provide anything simply because they don't think the police should have to follow the law I guess.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sumgai (profile), 12 Oct 2021 @ 8:00pm

    Would it surprise you to learn that all 9 justices of that court are.... Republicans?

    I don't know exactly how many Democrats there might be living in Alabama, but I'm betting pretty heavily that none of them, the media included, will stand up and sue the State in Federal court, for denial of simple rights. Obviously the charge will have to be ginned up to use legalese language, but the basic premise stands - the public is no longer allowed to ascertain the nominal business of police activity in their state.

    Here's hoping I'm wrong about who's got balls enough to go to the mat on this one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 12 Oct 2021 @ 8:07pm

      Re:

      Got it. The basic premise is that without oversight or accountability of a major portion of the State's administration, the citizens of Alabama are essentially cast into the abyss of Taxation Without Representation. I believe that's a Federal No-No, but I could be wrong about that one, I dunno.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Upstream (profile), 13 Oct 2021 @ 4:15am

    A competition?

    Maybe the Alabama SC is trying to compete with the Louisiana SC for the "Worst and Most Absurd State Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Law Enforcement" award?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Oct 2021 @ 5:36am

    "...the citizens of Alabama are essentially cast into the abyss of Taxation Without Representation."

    That ship sailed a long time ago. The US is one of very few western nations to automatically disenfranchise anyone who's faced a criminal conviction. With 5,2 million bereft the vote that's a solid finger on the scale.

    Most of the rest of the world rightly realizes that since the first people to suffer from failing democracy tends to be political dissenters it's not smart to rob someone of their vote because they've gone to jail. The US is more or less alone in the assumption that criminals should be punished in perpetuity for the crime they already did time for.

    "I believe that's a Federal No-No, but I could be wrong about that one, I dunno."

    Yeah, as so many other nice-sounding lines out of the US it's just insubstantial hype. And growing worse by the day, given how desperate a certain political faction is to disenfranchise vast numbers of people inclined to vote the wrong way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2021 @ 7:04am

    so the people mean nothing and nor do their rights! disgraceful!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 13 Oct 2021 @ 7:38am

    What happens in Alabama, stays hidden, forever, in Alabama.

    The black hole of North America, in many....many respects.

    I think we should all send our waste there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 13 Oct 2021 @ 3:53pm

    well

    NOW to federal court.
    And federal laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 13 Oct 2021 @ 8:05pm

    If they've done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2021 @ 3:13am

    In alabama's defence, they don't want it officially known that they have a shoot to kill policy vs anyone non-white.

    Hence they hide records, and simply change things from "was shot in the back from 20 yards away" to "commited suicide via hanging" etc.

    Hundreds of government sanctioned extra-judicial killings all hidden by the State Legislature. Who said lynchings ever stopped in Alabama? (the incest state)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

Introducing the new Techdirt Insider Chat, now hosted on Discord. If you are an Insider with a membership that includes the chat feature and have not yet been invited to join us on Discord, please reach out here.

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.