Case Law Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.

Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.

Document Cited Authorities (31) Cited in (37) Related

Robb S. Harvey and Lauran M. Sturm, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, The Tennessean, Associated Press, Chattanooga Times Free Press, Knoxville News Sentinel, Tennessee Associated Press Broadcasters, Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, Inc., The Commercial Appeal, WBIR–TV Channel Ten, WSMV–TV Channel Four, WTVF–TV, News Channel 5 Network, LLC, and WZTV Fox 17.

Saul Solomon, James L. Charles, Lora Barkenbus Fox, R. Alex Dickerson, Jennifer Cavanaugh, and Jennifer Bonilla Moreno, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

Edward M. Yarbrough and J. Alex Little, Nashville, Tennessee, for the intervenor/appellee, Jane Doe.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Janet M. Kleinfelter, Deputy Attorney General, for the intervenors/appellees, District Attorney General Glenn R. Funk and the State of Tennessee.

Richard L. Hollow, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae, Tennessee Press Association.

Douglas R. Pierce, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amici Curiae, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Tennessee Association of Broadcasters, Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, and The University of Virginia School of Law First Amendment Clinic.

Devin P. Lyon, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Amici Curiae, Tennessee Municipal Attorneys Association and International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Edmund S. Sauer, Kristi W. Arth, Connor M. Blair, and Jessica Jernigan–Johnson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amici Curiae, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, The Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, The National Crime Victim Law Institute, and the Sexual Assault Center.

Daniel A. Horwitz, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae, Domestic and Sexual Violence Prevention Advocates.

Sharon G. Lee, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Cornelia A. Clark, Jeffrey S. Bivins, and Holly Kirby, JJ., joined. Holly Kirby, J., filed a separate concurring opinion. Gary R. Wade, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

OPINION

Sharon G. Lee, C.J.

The issue in this case is whether a coalition of media groups and a citizens organization, relying on the Tennessee Public Records Act, have the right to inspect a police department's criminal investigative file while the criminal cases arising out of the investigation are ongoing. Four Vanderbilt University football players were indicted for aggravated rape and other criminal charges arising out of the alleged rape of a university student in a campus dormitory. Following the indictments, the Petitioners, a group of media organizations and a citizens group, made a Public Records Act request to inspect the police department's files regarding its investigation of the alleged criminal conduct by the football players. The request was denied. We hold that the Public Records Act allows access to government records, but there are numerous statutory exceptions, including a state law exception in Tennessee Code Annotated section 10–7–503(a)(2), that shield some records from disclosure. Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure falls within the state law exception. Rule 16 provides for the release of certain information to the defendant in a criminal case, but does not authorize the release of any information to a nonparty to the case. Therefore, during the pendency of the criminal case and any collateral challenges to any conviction, Rule 16 governs the disclosure of information and only the defendant has the right to receive certain information. We hold that, based on Rule 16, the Petitioners have no right to the requested information during the pendency of the criminal cases and any collateral challenges. Jane Doe, the victim of the alleged criminal acts, intervened in this action to prevent disclosure of the investigative file, and particularly photographs and video images of the alleged assault. Based on our ruling today, these records are protected from disclosure until the conclusion of the criminal cases and all collateral challenges. At the conclusion of the criminal cases and following any guilty plea or conviction and sentencing, Tennessee Code Annotated section 10–7–504(q)(1) applies to block the release of Ms. Doe's personal information and any photographic or video depiction of her. This requires no action on the part of Ms. Doe and no further court proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Beginning in late June of 2013, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Police Department ("Metro" or "Metro Police") investigated the rape of a university student that allegedly occurred in a Vanderbilt University dormitory during the early morning hours of June 23, 2013. In August of 2013, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Brandon Banks, Cory Batey, Jaborian McKenzie, and Brandon Vandenburg—all members of the Vanderbilt University football team—with five counts each of aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Vandenburg was also charged with unlawful photography and tampering with evidence. The four men pleaded not guilty. In August of 2013, another Vanderbilt University football player, Chris Boyd, pleaded guilty to a related charge of accessory after the fact. On October 2, 2013, the Criminal Court for Davidson County issued an agreed protective order, providing that all photographs and videos provided in discovery by the State would be disseminated only to counsel for the defendants.

On October 17, 2013, Brian Haas, a reporter for Nashville newspaper The Tennessean, made a public records request to the Metro Police, asking to inspect any records regarding the alleged rape on the Vanderbilt University campus in which Vandenburg, Banks, Batey, McKenzie, and Boyd were charged. The request specifically included any text messages received or sent and videos provided and/or prepared by any third party sources. On October 23, 2013, Metro denied the request, contending that the records sought were part of an open criminal investigation or pending prosecution pertaining to the rape cases and, therefore, were exempt from public disclosure under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(2). The Tennessean later clarified its request to state that it had no intention of publishing before trial the alleged victim's name without her permission and was not requesting any photographs or videos taken by any of the defendants during the alleged assault. Meanwhile, the Associated Press, the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Tennessee Associated Press Broadcasters, The Commercial Appeal, WBIR–TV Channel Ten, WSMV–TV Channel Four, WTVF–TV, News Channel 5 Network, LLC, WZTV Fox 17, and the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, Inc. joined The Tennessean in its request for the records.

On February 5, 2014, The Tennessean, the other requesting news organizations, and the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, Inc. ("the Petitioners") filed a petition against Metro in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking access to the requested records under the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 10–7–501 through 10–7–516 (2014). The Chancery Court granted the motions to intervene filed by the victim of the alleged rape, identified as "Jane Doe," and the Tennessee Attorney General, on behalf of both the State and the District Attorney General for Davidson County (collectively, the "State").

The State and Metro argued that all of the requested records were exempt from disclosure under Rule 16(a)(2) ; that many of the records were covered by the Criminal Court's October 2, 2013 protective order; and that disclosure of the records would adversely affect the Criminal Court's ability to ensure a fair trial. In addition, Metro challenged the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court, contending that exclusive jurisdiction rested with the Criminal Court. Ms. Doe argued that public disclosure of the records would contravene her rights guaranteed by article I, section 35 of the Tennessee Constitution2 and by the Victims' Bill of Rights, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4038–101 through 40–38–117 (2014).3

By an order entered on March 12, 2014, the Chancery Court reaffirmed its previous ruling that it had jurisdiction to decide the case. After an in camera inspection of the requested records, the Chancery Court categorized the requested records:

1. Building surveillance tapes, with the victim's image redacted, from three locations on the Vanderbilt University campus, including the dormitory where the alleged rapes occurred;
2. Videos and photographs, except for photographs or videotapes of the alleged rapes or any photos or videotapes of the victim;
3. Text messages and e-mails received from third parties by Metro Police in the course of its investigation;
4. Written statements of the defendants and witnesses provided by Vanderbilt University to Metro Police;
5. Vanderbilt University access card information;
6. Reports and e-mails provided by Vanderbilt University to Metro Police;
7. Forensic tests performed on telephones and computers by Metro Police;
8. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation DNA reports;
9. Forensic reports prepared by private laboratories hired by Metro Police; and
10. These items made or collected by Metro Police:
a) police reports and supplements;
b) search warrants;
c) crime scene photographs;
d) Pano-scan data relating to Vanderbilt University premises;[4]
e) background checks and other personal information regarding the victim, defendants, and witnesses;
f) cell phone information obtained through several search warrants;
g) photographic images and text messages recovered from the cell phones of the five individuals charged with
...
5 cases
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2017
McFarland v. Pemberton
"... ... the Tennessee Election Commission in Nashville, Tennessee, raising the issue of Mr. Pemberton's ... at *7 (quoting Wood v. Metro. Nashville & Davidson Cnty. Gov't , 196 S.W.3d ... See Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... "
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2021
Coffman v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc.
"... ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... 2010) ); Arnwine v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 120 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn ... "
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2020
State v. Welch
"... ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... Union Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 120 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2022
McLemore v. Gumucio
"... ... Tennessee, Nashville Division. Filed March 23, 2022 593 F.Supp.3d 765 ... See Wallace [v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville] , 546 S.W.3d [47] at 53 ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... "
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2017
State v. Perrier
"... ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2017
McFarland v. Pemberton
"... ... the Tennessee Election Commission in Nashville, Tennessee, raising the issue of Mr. Pemberton's ... at *7 (quoting Wood v. Metro. Nashville & Davidson Cnty. Gov't , 196 S.W.3d ... See Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... "
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2021
Coffman v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc.
"... ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... 2010) ); Arnwine v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 120 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn ... "
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2020
State v. Welch
"... ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... Union Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 120 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2022
McLemore v. Gumucio
"... ... Tennessee, Nashville Division. Filed March 23, 2022 593 F.Supp.3d 765 ... See Wallace [v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville] , 546 S.W.3d [47] at 53 ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... "
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2017
State v. Perrier
"... ... Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex