A recent decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals addresses whether a municipality must disclose certain records related to an internal police investigation, balancing public access with employee privacy. The ruling is significant for those interested in government transparency and the handling of sensitive personnel information.
The appeal was filed by the Town of Matthews after Mecklenburg County Superior Court partially granted Gray Media Group, Inc., doing business as WBTV, its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order in question was entered on September 13, 2024, by Judge Donald R. Cureton Jr.
According to court documents, the dispute began in April 2022 when Rebecca Hawke, manager for the Town of Matthews, initiated an investigation into allegations that a town police officer used excessive force during an arrest on January 11, 2021. To ensure impartiality, the town hired US ISS Agency, LLC (ISS) to conduct an independent administrative review. As part of this process, the town sought and received a court order permitting release of law enforcement body camera recordings to specific individuals involved in the investigation.
After ISS completed its review and submitted its findings (the ISS Report), the Town terminated the officer’s employment in December 2022. The termination letter cited portions of the ISS Report as reasons for dismissal.
On August 10, 2023, Nick Ochsner from Gray Media submitted a public records request seeking access to several items: body camera footage from four officers present at the incident, communications between town officials and legal counsel, contracts with ISS, and a copy of the ISS Report itself. While some documents were provided—including a partially redacted email—the Town withheld or redacted others citing North Carolina General Statute § 160A-168 governing confidentiality of municipal employee personnel files.
Gray Media challenged these redactions and refusals in correspondence with the Town. It argued that officers’ names should not be withheld because they appeared in publicly available petitions related to body camera footage and because state law makes city employee names public record. Additionally, Gray Media asserted that the ISS Report did not qualify as a confidential personnel file under state law.
Unable to reach agreement with the Town over what should be disclosed or redacted—particularly regarding an unredacted version of an email and full access to the ISS Report—Gray Media filed suit on October 20, 2028. Both parties filed motions: Gray Media sought judgment on the pleadings; Matthews requested summary judgment and asked for judicial review (in camera) of disputed documents.
Following hearings in June 2024 where both sides presented their arguments and supporting materials—including news articles and affidavits—the trial court conducted a private review (in camera) of both contested documents before issuing its decision. The trial court converted Gray Media’s motion into one for summary judgment due to consideration of evidence beyond initial pleadings.
The trial court ordered that if Gray Media wanted access to body camera recordings it must file a petition under N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A(g). Regarding other requests: it directed Matthews to provide Gray Media with an unredacted version of an email containing employee names; it also ordered partial release of sections from the confidential ISS Report except for parts involving interviews or statements by officers other than the subject officer.
Matthews appealed this order arguing two main points: first, that releasing any portion of confidential personnel files exceeded what is allowed under N.C.G.S. § 160A-168(c); second, that removing redactions from emails violated employee privacy rights under state law.
The appellate court agreed in part with both sides after reviewing statutory language and prior case law. On one hand, it found that while courts may allow examination (but not mass release) of relevant portions from confidential files if justice requires it under N.C.G.S. § 160A-168(c)(4), ordering outright release—as opposed to supervised examination—exceeded judicial authority due to risks associated with broad publication by media outlets like WBTV.
“Because the trial court does not have authority under N.C.G.S. § 160A-168(c)(4) to order release…the trial court erred,” wrote Judge Flood for the panel which included Chief Judge Dillon and Judge Griffin concurring.
On another point raised by Matthews—that revealing officer names constituted disclosure of protected information—the appellate panel disagreed based on statutory language making all city employee names public record regardless of context within personnel files: “Accordingly, we affirm…directing [the] Town to release a version…without redacting city employees’ names.”
In conclusion, while affirming parts of Superior Court’s order requiring unredacted disclosure of employee names within emails requested by Gray Media/WBTV as consistent with open records laws, North Carolina’s appellate judges vacated portions directing wholesale release from confidential investigative reports about police conduct—remanding those issues back for further proceedings consistent with their opinion limiting such disclosures strictly to examination rather than publication or copying.
Legal representation included Daniel E. Peterson (Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP) for defendant-appellant Town of Matthews and Lauren P. Russell (Ballard Spahr LLP) for plaintiff-appellee Gray Media Group Inc., d/b/a WBTV. The case number is COA25-332.
Source: COA25332_Gray_Media_Group_Inc_v_Town_of_Matthews_Opinion_North_Carolina_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
