S.C. bill seeks to keep some crime details from public | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
Sign In
Sign In
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

You have viewed all your free articles this month

Subscribe

Or subscribe with your Google account and let Google manage your subscription.

Politics & Government

S.C. bill seeks to keep some crime details from public

John Monk - The State (Columbia, S.C.)

February 16, 2012 01:15 PM

A bill introduced in the S.C. House would give police, prosecutors and sheriffs broad freedom to keep secret any and all crimes and arrests from the public, critics say.

“This goes a long way in creating a secret police operation in South Carolina,” said Jay Bender, a Columbia lawyer and USC media law professor who has for decades argued open government cases in courts. He represents numerous media organizations, including The State Media Company.

Supporters of the bill, including sponsor Rep. Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester, say Bender exaggerates the impact of the measure, which if passed would amend the state’s existing Freedom of Information law.

“For him to say this will cause a police state, that is a stretch,” Murphy said. He described his bill as “narrowly tailored” to allow law enforcement to more easily deny an FOI request to make public sensitive pretrial information about crime victims, witnesses and ongoing investigations.

The specific language in Murphy’s bill says law officials would be able to withhold any “information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action or criminal prosecution.”

“You could still to get police reports and everything else,” Murphy said. “All my amendment really did in my opinion was add protection for disclosure of information that could be harmful to a victim or a witness.”

Bender said current FOI already contains provisions giving law agencies authority to keep confidential information that might harm witnesses and victims.

However, Bender said, current FOI law puts the burden on prosecutors and police to prove to a judge why they need to keep evidence in an ongoing case secret – since, under court rules, defense attorneys and the defendant must be given all evidence before trial anyway.

“There now has to be a demonstration that the release would harm the agency,” Bender said.

Murphy proposed his bill after hearing concerns from prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies that current law makes it hard for them to keep critical pretrial information out of public view.

For example, a current case involves the recent shooting death of an Aiken police officer during a traffic stop. The officer’s traffic camera apparently caught all or part of the shooting on tape, and various news media organizations have filed requests to see the videotape. A possible death penalty trial is months away.

“This type of material should not be disseminated before the trial,” said 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe, president of the state Solicitors’ Association, who urged Murphy to file his bill. It can prejudice potential jurors, making it more difficult to hold a fair trial, he said.

But Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association, said it’s the job of the judge – not the police or prosecutor – to set the rules for a fair trial. Since the defendant can view the videotape, the public should be able to also, he said. “The only people who won’t have the tape are the people,” he said.

Others say there would be little to keep police from bowing to pressure from merchants or politicians to keep a crime wave or a sensitive arrest – perhaps even of a politician – under wraps. Even if police reports still are made available, developments in cases happen after police reports are filed.

Not all law officers have signed on to Murphy’s proposal.

“What we withhold now is generally what we need to withhold,” said Jeff Moore, executive director of the S.C. Sheriffs’ Association. “We do it on a case-by-case basis.”

Murphy said in the event of a disagreement over what can be released, “You still have the courts. The courts can determine whether the information is covered under the FOI.”

Bender said forcing a citizen or a news media organization to hire a lawyer defeats the open spirit of the FOI. “It’s expensive, time-consuming and ignores the notion that in a democracy, (it is) the police (who) have to answer to the public, and not the public that has to answer to police.”

The bill is in the House Judiciary Committee. No date for a hearing has been set. It has 33 co-sponsors, including House Speaker Bobby Harrell and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. James Harrison, R-Richland.

Both sides claim the high ground.

“If you want to have police corruption, just let them operate in secret,” Bender said. “A fundamental concept of democracy is for the public to know what’s going on and to be in charge.”

Pascoe said: “My job is to make sure the state of South Carolina, the victims and defendants receive a fair trial. The effect of this bill is to assure that victims’ rights, and the right of a defendant to a fair trial, aren’t infringed upon. This proposed bill in no way violates the public’s right to know.”

To read more, visit www.thestate.com.

Read Next

Video media Created with Sketch.

Midterms

Democrat calls for 48 witnesses at state board hearing into election fraud in NC

By Brian Murphy and

Carli Brosseau

December 30, 2018 07:09 PM

Democrat Dan McCready’s campaign listed 48 witnesses for the state board of elections to subpoena for a scheduled Jan. 11 hearing into possible election fraud in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.

KEEP READING

MORE POLITICS & GOVERNMENT

Latest News

Trump administration aims to stop professional baseball deal with Cuba

December 29, 2018 02:46 PM

Congress

’I’m not a softy by any means,’ Clyburn says as he prepares to help lead Democrats

December 28, 2018 09:29 AM

Courts & Crime

Trump will have to nominate 9th Circuit judges all over again in 2019

December 28, 2018 03:00 AM

Investigations

Cell signal puts Cohen outside Prague around time of purported Russian meeting

December 27, 2018 10:36 AM

Congress

Lone senator at the Capitol during shutdown: Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts

December 27, 2018 06:06 PM

Elections

California Republicans fear even bigger trouble ahead for their wounded party

December 27, 2018 09:37 AM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service