The Metro Nashville Police Department does not have to release investigation records requested by a group of media organizations in a rape case involving four former Vanderbilt University football players.
The ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court stated the Tennessee Public Records Act did not require police to release those records.
Officials investigated the alleged rape of a student in a college dorm in June 2013.
Four Vanderbilt football players have been indicted in the case for multiple counts of rape and sexual battery, and one with unlawful photography and tampering with evidence.
All four pleaded not guilty, and the Davidson County Criminal Court issued an agreed protective order. The order provided that all photographs and videos given to the defendants by the State could be viewed only by the defendants’ attorneys.
A public records request was made to police by a Nashville newspaper in October 2013.
The request included any text messages received or sent and any videos provided or prepared by any third-party sources.
According to officials, the Public Records Act has generally provided the right of the public to inspect government records.
Police denied the request because the requested records were part of an open criminal investigation.
The prosecution was pending; therefore, the records were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Several other media organizations joined the newspaper in requesting the records.
A suit was filed in February 2014 by multiple media outlets in Davidson County Chancery Court. The media was seeking access to the requested records under the Public Records Act.
Police, the State, and the victim opposed the release of the records.
Both the State and police argued the records were exempt from disclosure because they were protected since criminal proceedings were still pending.
It was also argued the release of the records could lead to an unfair trial.
Authorities said the victim added the release of the records would violate her rights.
The Chancery Court privately inspected the requested records and ruled some of them were subject to disclosure; however, the Court of Appeals reversed the Chancery Court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals found all of the sought-after records were exempt from disclosure under a rule which said they were all relevant to a pending or contemplated criminal action.
After that ruling, the media outlets appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld that of the Court of Appeals, stating the records were exempt from disclosure.
Justice Gary R. Wade agreed with the trial court, but he dissented after focusing on the victim’s claim that the public disclosure of records relating to the rape would violate her constitutional right “to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice system.”
According to Justice Wade, his dissent expressed concern the victim would be forced to re-litigate her claim at a later time. The rule stating the records should not be disclosed would eventually cease to make the documents exempt when the criminal prosecutions come to an end.
Justice Holly Kirby agreed with the majority. Kirby filed a separate concurring opinion in response to the dissent saying the dissent “would throw open police files on pending investigations and criminal prosecutions, not only to responsible media sources, but also to suspected perpetrators under investigation and their allies, gang members, voyeurs, pornographers, anyone.”
According to Justice Kirby, a ruling in line with the dissent could have “catastrophic consequences for all involved in the criminal justice system.”
The following statement was released Thursday by the victim's counsel:
“We are pleased by today’s decision. It provides a commonsense solution to most of the problems posed by The Tennessean’s ill-conceived effort to publish evidence in a pending criminal case. We argued that courts should protect the confidentiality of crime victims, and this decision helps accomplish that goal. But the nature and scope of victims’ rights in Tennessee remain unclear, and our client was disappointed that the Court avoided these critical questions. Crime victims in Tennessee should be able to pursue justice without subjecting themselves to abuse, intimidation, and harassment. To the extent this decision helps victims do so, it is an important step forward.”
To read the Court’s full opinion, click here.
