NC Supreme Court Confirms Process For Defendants To Seek Police Bodycam Footage

By Carolina Journal Staff

The North Carolina Supreme Court used an Iredell County case to clarify the process a defendant must use to secure access to police bodycam footage. The 5-2 decision Friday reversed a District Court judge’s 2024 decision against Mooresville Police.

Charlotte Chemuti served a subpoena on Mooresville Police to access footage linked to her 2023 arrest for resisting a public officer. The police responded that state law prevented release of that footage. The law required Chemuti to file a petition or complaint in Superior Court.

The District Court judge overseeing Chemuti’s case disagreed and ordered police in January 2024 to turn over the footage. The state Court of Appeals rejected Mooresville’s appeal of that order.

“Criminal defendants generally have a constitutional right to compel the release of any evidence necessary to present a complete defense,” Justice Richard Dietz wrote for the court’s majority. “In North Carolina, defendants in district court typically do this using a subpoena — a fairly effortless process that involves defense counsel completing a preprinted court form.”

“But states can create special procedures to protect the confidentiality of certain records sought by criminal defendants,” Dietz added.

“In 2016, the General Assembly created this sort of special procedure for certain recordings made by law enforcement agencies,” he explained. “The statute requires the requesting party to file a petition or complaint in superior court and affords the court broad discretion to determine which portions of the recording, if any, should be produced.”

“[T]his statutory procedure supplants the use of a subpoena and is now the exclusive means to obtain these recordings for use in a criminal case,” Dietz wrote. “The statute expressly applies to anyone ‘seeking to obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a current or potential court proceeding’ and makes no exception for criminal defendants.”

“This statutory procedure also does not unconstitutionally burden criminal defendants’ access to these recordings,” the majority opinion added. “The procedure has changed; the constitutional standard has not. Although the superior court has discretion in selecting which portions of the requested recording, if any, should be released, our precedent requires the court to exercise that discretion consistent with the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and compulsory process.”

“In sum, the only practical change brought about by N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A is the addition of an extra procedural step to obtain evidence needed for a complete defense,” Dietz wrote.

“We acknowledge that this change may impose additional burdens on defendants, their counsel, and the courts. But the decision to impose those burdens, in an effort to protect material the law deems confidential, is a permissible policy choice of the legislature. This Court is therefore bound to respect it.”

The court’s five Republican justices supported the majority decision. Both Democratic justices dissented.

“The district court correctly denied the motion to quash filed by the Town of Mooresville and the Mooresville Police Department (collectively, Mooresville) and ordered Mooresville to comply with defendant Charlotte Chemuti’s subpoena requesting body camera footage,” Justice Allison Riggs wrote. “I would hold that N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A does not establish the exclusive method for criminal defendants in district court to request body camera footage.”

“The majority, in requiring a superior court order to release body camera footage, inserts the word ‘superior’ into the language of the statute,” Riggs added. “The plain language of the statute establishes that a court order is mandatory but does not create an exclusive procedure in the superior court.”

“[T]o the extent that the use of ‘court order’ and references to ‘superior court’ create any ambiguity in the statute, I would resolve those ambiguities in favor of more easy access for criminal defendants to materials that may be exonerating or significant to their cases,” Riggs explained. “The majority’s interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A risks violating defendants’ constitutional rights and impeding judicial efficiency.”

“The legislature’s intent is clear from the plain language of the statute — while defendants must obtain a court order to receive body camera footage, that order need not come from a superior court,” the dissent argued. “When the General Assembly carefully chooses language that does not require a superior court order, it would be improper for this Court to impose an additional requirement or burden.”

“Defendants like Ms. Chemuti, whose low-level offense cases are heard in district court and frequently disposed of or resolved with finality by the district court, should be able to receive the mandatory court order from the district court — the court in which their case is proceeding,” Riggs wrote. “To hold otherwise would be to ignore the clear intent of the General Assembly and create an unnecessary hurdle for district court defendants.”

The case returns to District Court. Chemuti can request the bodycam footage in Superior Court.