Open records right decision in murder case

A circuit judge made the right decision in ruling that search warrant records in the Yeardley Love-George Huguely murder case be opened to the public, absent some specific details.
However, as of this writing it is still possible that the records will not be opened — at least, not soon. Opponents could file an appeal, and they might ask the judge to keep the records secret while the appeal is being processed.
Press efforts to open the records are made from the presumption that documents created by public officials in the pursuit of the public’s business need to be open to review by the public.
The issue is a particularly sensitive one at this time of year, as we have just celebrated Independence Day. The nation’s founders were deeply concerned about secrecy in court documents and deliberations, because British tyranny had misused secrecy as a political weapon.
The founders, in fact, advocated openness in government actions and records as an underlying principle of the Republic.
That is one of the fundamental strengths of our democracy — and one of the things necessary for us to remain a democracy.
Yes, there are reasons to seal some investigative and related records, but those reasons are carefully spelled out in law. And there are avenues that may be followed to allow documents to be open except for specifically enumerated and sensitive data.
That is the tack ultimately followed by Circuit Judge John McGrath, who ordered that the documents be made public be released to public view, but that certain details — including some investigative data and Internet and cell phone information — be withheld.
In other words, the law assumes that public documents are to be public except in special instances, and that when these special instances arise it is government’s responsibility to use the least restrictive option available to both protect their documents and to protect the public’s right to know.
The current case strayed far from that standard.
Indeed, not only were the search warrant documents themselves put under a seal, but the original judge then also sealed the order that sealed the documents. This double lock on public information was especially egregious. Not only were we not supposed to know what was in the documents, we were not supposed to know why officials wanted those documents kept from us or who asked for the seal.
Following a hearing on a lawsuit filed by several media outlets, including The Daily Progress, the judge later changed her mind. She unlocked the sealing order but redacted certain details. The media outlets then continued to press for disclosure of the documents themselves.
That action is aimed not at making the investigation or trial more difficult, it is aimed at protecting the public’s lawful access to public information.
Government officials at all levels are trending more and more toward curtailing openness, a fact that does
not bode well for democracy. Advocates for freedom need to challenge them at every level, or risk losing that freedom to the creeping trend toward secrecy.