A Fulton County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the City of Sandy Springs in an Open Records Act lawsuit filed by Appen Media Group.
Appen Media Group, which publishes community newspapers including the Sandy Springs Crier and Dunwoody Crier, claimed in its lawsuit that police incident reports were purposefully incomplete, usually including a one-sentence statement that an officer responded to a call. The suit further claimed that supplemental reports often made by officers at the same time were subject to the state’s Open Records Act.
Superior Court Judge Kimberly M. Esmond Adams granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, ruling against Appen Media Group in her order issued on Dec. 22.
“Clearly, this runs against a long history of police incident reports, including the narrative being open to public inspection. It goes against long-standing guidance from the [Attorney General] that these records are public in their entirety,” Richard T. Griffiths of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation said in response to the ruling.
The judge’s ruling said that Appen Media Group did not cite an authority that directly supported its argument that the city’s interpretation of the Open Records Act was incorrect. Adams’ ruling said that she could not find such an authority, “although Plaintiff may be correct in its assertion that Defendant’s practice violates the spirit of the Open Records Act.”
Appen Media Publisher & CEO Hans Appen told Rough Draft that Sandy Springs is violating the spirit of the Open Records Act, which he said the judge seems to acknowledge. He said they will meet with their attorneys this week and plan their actions.
“If the ruling stands, it would create a permission structure for police departments to default to non-disclosure, instead of to disclosure with narrow exceptions. Georgia’s [Open Records Act] says information is public by default, and that some narrow exceptions may be applied. This ruling would reverse that framework,” Appen said.
The judge cited court cases that reached the Georgia Supreme Court that also dealt with law enforcement records, including a case by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution vs. City of Brunswick. In that ruling, the Supreme Court cited state law on law enforcement and prosecution records that “broadly exempts from disclosure the entirety of such records to the extent they are part of a ‘pending investigation or prosecution’ and cannot otherwise be characterized as the initial arrest, accident[,] or incident report.”
Appen said that the case states that records that could be characterized as the initial arrest, accident, or incident report should be disclosed.
“That is what our lawsuit is all about – the initial incident reports. So, she either didn’t understand our allegations or she didn’t understand the case law she herself cited. I am confident the Appeal Court will understand both,” he said.
“The judge completely misunderstands the nature of the Open Records Act, which says in its preamble, that exceptions must be narrowly interpreted. This exception is so big you could drive a tractor-trailer through it,” Griffiths said.
The media ethicist said he hoped the ruling would be quickly appealed. Griffiths said it would make it difficult for residents to know what’s happening with crime in their communities.
Rough Draft recently faced a similar situation with Sandy Springs Police over obtaining details about the murder of a teenager in the city on Dec. 9.
“And it doesn’t serve any purpose other than to shield these reports from the public and encourages police departments to play games with the Open Records Act,” Griffiths said.
If allowed to stand statewide, he said it would be a monumental blow to the public’s right to know.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.