NYPD Must Release Body-Cam Footage of Fatal Shooting of Woman,

but with "blurring images of [Susan] Muller's body and blood spatter."

From the N.Y. intermediate appellate court's decision in In the Matter of N.Y. Lawyers for the Public Interest v. NYPD, decided Thursday:

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered June 3, 2020, which granted the CPLR article 78 petition for an order compelling respondent New York City Police Department (NYPD), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), to produce unredacted copies of video recorded by police officers on body-worn cameras during the fatal shooting of Susan Muller in Maspeth, Queens, on September 17, 2018, as well as any 911 calls made by Muller on September 16 and 17, 2018, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the petition to the extent of directing respondents to produce all records sought by petitioner, except that video footage should be redacted by blurring images of Muller's body and blood spatter, and remanding the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings, including in camera review as necessary, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. [Now that's a sentence! -EV]

Muller's family has a compelling interest in protecting Muller's dignity by limiting public access to images of her bloodied body (see Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 485 [2005]; Matter of Edwards v New York State Police, 44 AD3d 1216, 1216-1217 [3d Dept 2007]). Petitioner advances a significant countervailing public interest in disclosure of the video, to promote better outcomes in mental health crises. These competing interests can best be balanced by redacting the video to blur out sensitive footage of Muller's body and the scene of her shooting death (see New York Times, 4 NY3d at 485).

Respondents have not met their burden of showing that the video and audio footage should be redacted to remove Muller's home address and to blur the faces of bystanders at the scene (see Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 462 [2007]). The privacy interests in both categories are attenuated (Muller's address has already been repeatedly reported in the press and the bystanders' expectations of privacy in the public square are limited) and, under the circumstances, are outweighed by petitioner's interest in full access.

Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center's MediaLawDaily for the pointer.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

I make a distinction that the law (unfortunately) does not -- release to the person (or next of kin) and release to the general public.

If the person (or next of kin) wants to then release (or sell) it to the media, fine. But that's respecting the person's privacy rights in a way that an initial public release doesn't. It's the same thing as John Kerry's DD-214 (his USN discharge paperwork) -- if *he* has access to it, and *he* could have released it if he'd wished, but the USN can't release it without his permission.

Same thing with tax returns and medical records. And what bothers me is that I don't see that distinction being made here.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

With Kerry's DD-214, sure. But this involves public employees shooting someone, and their employer, the public, has a say in the matter too. She called 9-1-1, no? That put the matter in the public's interest.

[gormadoc]

Both of your examples are made by private individuals and are either for the government or just regulated by the government and are specifically protected by law. Body-cams collect data on behalf of the government and apparently aren't specifically protected so I don't see why they're comparable to your examples.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"“What the f— is that thing?” he yelled."

Well, what WAS it?