In State v. Chemuti, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A means what it says – custodial law enforcement agency recordings can only be released pursuant to a superior court order, and only after the superior court considers the eight statutory factors that govern its release. Such recordings cannot be released pursuant to subpoena.
The general assembly enacted § 132-1.4A in 2016 to protect the state’s compelling interest in limiting access to law enforcement agency recordings. These recordings, the Supreme Court pointed out, often capture people at “their lowest or most vulnerable points.” The statute strikes a balance. It allows citizens to ask the superior court to release these recordings. At the same time, the statue mandates that the superior court consider uniform criteria to set the terms and conditions for a recording’s release.
Some criminal defendants, like the defendant in Chemuti, subpoenaed law enforcement agencies to release their recordings without a court order. They argued that § 132-1.4A is not the only avenue to obtain these recordings. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the statute makes clear that the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction to order an agency to release its recordings. And this procedure, the Supreme Court held, does not impinge a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.
Chemuti should put an end to subpoenas for law enforcement agency recordings. Those seeking such recordings must follow § 132-1.4A and seek a superior court order, like the general assembly always intended.
Steven Bader represented the Town of Mooresville and the Mooresville Police Department in Chemuti. If you have questions about Chemuti or the release of law enforcement agency recordings, contact the Municipalities and Public Entities practice group at Cranfill Sumner LLP.
The outcome of a particular case cannot be predicated upon a lawyer's or law firm's past results.
