Title: Tull v. Brown

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present: All the Justices 
 
JUDI TULL, ET AL. 
 
v.  Record No. 970002   
 
HAROLD D. BROWN, SHERIFF OF SURRY COUNTY 
 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
                                         January 9, 1998 
DAVID STRICKLAND, ET AL. 
 
v.  Record No.  970003 
 
HAROLD D. BROWN, SHERIFF OF SURRY COUNTY 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SURRY COUNTY 
 
Robert G. O’Hara, Jr., Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, several news media organizations and their 
representatives (the Media) challenge the circuit court’s denial 
of their requests under The Virginia Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), Code §§ 2.1-340 et seq., for access to audio tape 
recordings and related materials (911 Tape) concerning an 
emergency call to the Surry County 911 Emergency Response System 
(911 System).
1  The Surry County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO), under 
the direction of Sheriff Harold D. Brown (Sheriff Brown), 
operates the system and has custody of the requested information. 
 Because we find that the 911 Tape is an official record that is 
exempt from disclosure, we will affirm the judgment of the 
circuit court. 
                     
    
1 The lower court consolidated several petitions for 
mandamus and injunctive relief with a declaratory judgment 
action.  Judi Tull, The Daily Press, Inc., W. Alec 
Cunningham, Times Publishing Company, Brian M. Rafferty, 
Chesapeake Publishing Corporation, David Strickland, and 
WAVY-TV filed the petitions for mandamus.  Harold D. Brown, 
Sheriff of Surry County, filed the application for 
declaratory judgment. 
 
I. 
 
Surry County established the 911 System in October 1995 and 
funds its operation with public monies.  The SCSO serves as the 
dispatcher for all 911 calls.  When such a call comes into the 
dispatcher’s office, which is located in a portion of the SCSO 
not accessible to the public, the dispatcher advises the 
appropriate provider of emergency services of the call for 
assistance and/or dispatches SCSO deputies to the crisis scene. 
 
The SCSO also uses its recording ensemble in conjunction 
with the 911 System.  The recording ensemble consists of two tape 
decks located in a locked cabinet in the dispatcher’s office.  
Each deck holds a twelve-inch tape reel capable of recording ten 
channels simultaneously.  One tape is used for each 24-hour 
period, after which the system automatically switches to the 
other deck.  The recorded tape is removed, placed in a locked 
storage cabinet, and reused after 30 days unless a police officer 
needs information on it.
2 Only Sheriff Brown, his secretary, and 
the chief dispatcher have the code that allows access to these 
tapes. The system records not only 911 calls, but also all radio 
traffic over the SCSO radio network and the State 
Interdepartmental Radio System, and all incoming and outgoing 
calls over four SCSO telephone lines.  SCSO personnel use these 
lines for official business including criminal investigations.  
Finally, the system records all conversations between individuals 
physically in the dispatcher’s office. 
                     
    
2 Sheriff Brown agreed to preserve the 911 Tape at issue 
in this case.  
 
On November 21, 1995, the SCSO dispatcher received a 911 
call from the home of Wayne and Lisa Rickman concerning a child 
who had stopped breathing.  During the next 20 minutes, there 
were exchanges between the dispatcher and the 911 caller, and 
between the dispatcher and various law enforcement and rescue 
personnel.  The child subsequently died at a local hospital, and 
the SCSO treated the incident as a criminal investigation until 
an autopsy ruled out any criminal activity as the cause of death. 
 
Beginning on November 27, 1995, because of alleged public 
concern about the efficiency of the 911 System in responding to 
this call, Sheriff Brown received several requests from the Media 
for the 911 Tape made during this incident.  Judi Tull, a 
reporter with The Daily Press, Inc., made the first request, 
which encompasses all the information sought by the Media under 
FOIA: 
 
I want to listen to the tape recording made at the 
county dispatch office, containing conversations 
involving and related to the call from the home of 
Wayne and Lisa Rickman to the Surry County 911 system 
on Tuesday, Nov. 21, 1995.  This request includes the 
call made from the Rickman house to the dispatcher, and 
any subsequent conversations or calls made by anyone at 
the dispatch office or other government office in 
relation to this call.  In addition, I am also asking 
for any written documents or any information stored 
electronically or magnetically, related to this 
dispatch call and actions by the dispatcher, including 
any information stored in a computer or on disc. 
 
 
In response to the Media’s requests, Sheriff Brown denied 
access to the actual tape.  He first claimed that the SCSO is not 
a public body within the meaning of FOIA but has since stipulated 
that he is a public official.  Sheriff Brown then asserted, as a 
basis for his denial, that the 911 Tape is not an official record 
as defined in FOIA.  Alternatively, he maintained that, if the 
911 Tape is an official record, it is exempt from disclosure 
under Code § 15.1-135.1(B)(5). 
 
Sheriff Brown did, however, provide the Media with a 
transcript of the recorded conversations relating to this 
incident.
3  Because of the repeated requests for access to the 
actual tape even after he had provided the transcript, Sheriff 
Brown petitioned the circuit court to declare that the 911 Tape 
is “not available to the public under the Freedom of Information 
Act.”  The Media then filed several petitions for mandamus and 
injunctive relief.  After considering all the evidence presented 
at a hearing, the circuit court, in an order dated October 2, 
1996, granted declaratory judgment for Sheriff Brown after making 
the following specific findings: 
 
l. 
The 911 Tapes are not official records subject to 
FOIA disclosure because the 911 Tapes are not prepared, 
owned or possessed by the Sheriff in the transaction of 
public business, as neither the originator nor the 
recipient of the emergency call would reasonably 
believe or realize they were transacting public 
business. 
 
 
2. 
The Court further finds that even if the 911 Tapes 
are official records, they are exempt from FOIA as 
noncriminal incident reports required to be kept by the 
Sheriff pursuant to § 15.1-135.1 of the Code of 
Virginia in the efficient operation of a law 
enforcement agency; and 
 
 
3. 
Finally, the court finds that, if not exempt from 
FOIA by definition or statutory exemption, mandatory 
disclosure of the 911 Tapes would not be required 
because the General Assembly intended to exclude from 
mandatory disclosure information which, if required to 
be released, would unconstitutionally interfere with 
                     
    
3 A court reporter prepared the transcript after listening 
to the separate channels on the tape and integrating the 
various recordings into one document.  
the Sheriff’s ability to execute the duties of his 
office; therefore, such information falls outside the 
coverage of FOIA by the ruling of the Virginia Supreme 
Court in Taylor v. Worrell Enterprises, 242 Va. 219 [, 
409 S.E.2d 136] (1991). 
 
The Media appeal. 
 
II. 
 
The policy underlying FOIA and its rules of construction are 
set forth in Code § 2.1-340.1: 
 
 
By enacting this chapter the General Assembly 
ensures the people of this Commonwealth ready access to 
records in the custody of public officials and free 
entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business 
of the people is being conducted. . . . 
 
 
 
This chapter shall be liberally construed to 
promote an increased awareness by all persons of 
governmental activities and afford every opportunity to 
citizens to witness the operations of government.  Any 
exception or exemption from applicability shall be 
narrowly construed in order that no thing which should 
be public may be hidden from any person. 
 
See also City of Danville v. Laird, 223 Va. 271, 276, 288 S.E.2d 
429, 431 (1982).  In applying the statute, we have stated that 
“[t]he Act is simple and direct in its requirements.  If the 
requested document is an ‘official record,’ . . . then it ‘shall 
be open to inspection and copying’ except ‘as otherwise 
specifically provided by law’ . . . .”  Associated Tax Service v. 
Fitzpatrick, 236 Va. 181, 187, 372 S.E.2d 625, 629 (1988) 
(quoting Code §§ 2.1-341 and 2.1-342(A)).  Accordingly, we must 
decide whether the 911 Tape is an official record, and if it is, 
we must then determine whether it is exempt from disclosure. 
 
On the first question, the circuit court ruled that the 911 
Tape is not an official record
4 because “neither the originator 
                     
    
4 Code § 2.1-341 defines "official records" as: 
nor the recipient of the emergency call would reasonably believe 
or realize they were transacting public business.”  Sheriff Brown 
expounds on this ruling by arguing that a 911 caller has an 
expectation that his/her voice and the content of the message 
will not be available to the public.  He also contends that a 911 
call affects only an individual and not the community at large. 
 
Sheriff Brown’s position is, however, untenable.  Even if a 
911 caller assumes that the call will remain private,
5 the 
caller’s expectation of privacy or claim of confidentiality does 
not prevent a recording of the call from being prepared “in the 
transaction of public business.”  Moreover, Surry County created 
the 911 System with public funds to provide for public safety.  
The “transaction of public business” includes public safety.  See 
Blue Cross v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 349, 358, 269 S.E.2d 827, 833 
(1980)(“[Police power] includes the power to prescribe 
regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education and 
good order of the people.”).  Indeed, every citizen in Surry 
County relies on the 911 System, and to say that the operation of 
the system by the SCSO and Sheriff Brown is not “in the 
                                                                  
 
 
[A]ll written or printed books, paper, letters, 
documents, maps and tapes, photographs, files, 
sound recordings, reports or other material, 
regardless of physical form or characteristics, 
prepared, owned, or in the possession of a public 
body or any employee or officer of a public body in 
the transaction of public business. 
    
5 But see Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton County, 662 
N.E.2d 334, 337 (Ohio 1996) ("There is no expectation of 
privacy when a person makes a 911 call.  Instead, there is an 
expectation that the information provided will be recorded 
and disclosed to the public."). 
transaction of public business” is simply inaccurate.  
Furthermore, Sheriff Brown is a public official, see Va. Const. 
art. VII, § 4, and acts in that capacity when managing the 911 
System.  Thus, we conclude that the 911 Tape is an official 
record under FOIA.  See State v. Cain, 613 A.2d 804, 809 (Conn. 
1992); State v. Gray, 741 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Mo. App. 1987); 
Cincinnati Enquirer, 662 N.E.2d at 337. 
 
Even though we find that the circuit court erred in holding 
that the 911 Tape is not an official record, we agree that the 
tape is exempt from disclosure under Code § 15.1-135.1 as 
“noncriminal incidents records.”  This section requires a sheriff 
to maintain “adequate personnel, arrest, investigative, 
reportable incidents, and noncriminal incidents records necessary 
for the efficient operation of a law-enforcement agency” and 
makes such records exempt from disclosure under FOIA.  Code 
§ 15.1-135.1(A).  “Noncriminal incidents records” are defined as 
“compilations of noncriminal occurrences of general interest to 
law-enforcement agencies, such as missing persons, lost and found 
property, suicides and accidental deaths.”  Code § 15.1-
135.1(B)(5). 
 
The Media challenge the circuit court’s application of this 
exemption for several reasons.  First, the Media argue that the 
911 Tape is not a law enforcement record because Surry County, 
not the SCSO, created and funds the 911 System, and Sheriff Brown 
is merely the tape’s custodian.  However, the SCSO operates the 
911 System during the performance of its traditional law 
enforcement responsibilities.  The fact that Sheriff Brown 
carries out this service on behalf of the county does not make 
the 911 Tape any less a law enforcement record.  Furthermore, 
Code § 15.1-135.1 directs a sheriff to maintain, “in addition to 
other records required by law,” other enumerated records 
“necessary for the efficient operation of a law-enforcement 
agency.”  One such type of record is “noncriminal incidents 
records.”  Code § 15.1-135.1(A). 
 
The Media, however, assert that the 911 Tape does not fall 
under “noncriminal incidents records” because it is not a 
compilation.  According to the Media, the 911 Tape is only raw 
data and not an orderly report or summary created by assembling 
raw data, i.e., a compilation.  Nonetheless, we conclude that the 
tape is a grouping of electronically gathered information and 
thus a “compilation.”  The tape at issue in this case is not just 
a recording of the conversation between the 911 caller and the 
dispatcher.  Rather, it is a recording on multiple channels of 
all radio traffic handled through the SCSO’s dispatch office in 
addition to conversations occurring on SCSO’s four telephone 
lines and conversations between individuals physically in the 
dispatcher’s office.  In short, all activity occurring in the 
dispatch office as well as that on the four telephone lines is 
compiled on this tape. 
 
Finally, the Media argue that the 911 Tape is not the kind 
of “noncriminal incidents” included in this exemption.  Yet, 911 
calls frequently concern suicides or accidental deaths, which are 
two of the specific examples included in Code § 15.1-135.1(B)(5). 
 Even the 911 call at issue here involved the initially 
unexplained death of a child. 
 
Thus, we conclude that the 911 Tape falls squarely within 
the exemption set forth in Code § 15.1-135.1(B)(5).  Contrary to 
the Media’s argument, the fact that Sheriff Brown voluntarily 
provided a transcript of the specific 911 call does not waive his 
right to deny access to the actual tape under this exemption.
6  
See Westminster-Canterbury v. City of Virginia Beach, 238 Va. 
493, 503, 385 S.E.2d 561, 566 (1989) ("[E]stoppel does not apply 
to the state or to local governments when acting in a 
governmental capacity."); see also Litchfield Plantation Co., 
Inc. v. Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, 443 S.E.2d 
574, 575 (S.C. 1994) (holding that FOIA exemptions not waived by 
public body's failure to respond). 
 
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the 
circuit court.
7
 
Record Number 970002 -- Affirmed.
 
Record Number 970003 -- Affirmed.
                     
    
6 Likewise, the fact that Sheriff Brown recycles the tapes 
does not affect their exemption under FOIA. 
    
7 In light of this decision, we do not address the media's 
remaining assignment of error.  We also do not decide whether 
the 911 Tape would be exempt under other subsections of Code 
§ 15.1-135.1(B) since Sheriff Brown did not rely on those 
subsections in denying the Media's requests.  See Code § 2.1-
342(A)(2).