Case Name: PIEDMONT PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. d/b/a the WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL, JOE GOODMAN, JOE STINEBAKER and LAURA KNIGHT v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM and GEORGE L. SWEAT
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1993-09-10
Citations: 334 N.C. 595
Docket Number: No. 352PA92
Parties: PIEDMONT PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. d/b/a the WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL, JOE GOODMAN, JOE STINEBAKER and LAURA KNIGHT v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM and GEORGE L. SWEAT
Judges: Chief Justice Exum and Justice Frye join in this dissenting opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 334
Pages: 595–601

Head Matter:
PIEDMONT PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. d/b/a the WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL, JOE GOODMAN, JOE STINEBAKER and LAURA KNIGHT v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM and GEORGE L. SWEAT
No. 352PA92
(Filed 10 September 1993)
State § 1.2 (NCI3d)— police communications or reports — part of criminal investigation —not public records
The trial court did not err by denying plaintiff’s motion to compel the release of communications or reports by two officers during a disturbance in which one of the officers was killed. Although it appears that the Public Record Act provides that the recordings at issue in this case are public records which should be subject to inspection and copying by the plaintiff, Article 48 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes, which provides specifically for discovery in criminal actions, governs in this case because the copies of recordings the plaintiff seeks to obtain were unquestionably gathered by the Winston-Salem Police Department in the course of a criminal investigation and are part of the State’s file in a pending criminal action. When one statute deals with a particular subject in detail, and another in general and comprehensive terms, the more specific statute will be controlling. N.C.G.S. § 132-1.
Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery § 81.
Privilege of custodian, apart from statute or rule, from disclosure, in civil action, of official police records and reports. 36 ALR2d 1318.
Chief Justice EXUM dissenting.
Justice Mitchell dissenting.
Chief Justice EXUM and Justice FRYE join this dissenting opinion.
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 prior to determination by the Court of Appeals of a judgment entered for the defendants on 5 August 1992 by Barefoot, J., in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 May 1993.
The facts giving rise to this case are not in dispute. In the early morning hours of 26 June 1992, Winston-Salem police officers responded to reports of unauthorized operation of heavy road-working equipment by several unknown individuals in the city’s Lakeside neighborhood. Lieutenant Aaron G. Tise, Jr. was among the officers who investigated the disturbance. During his investigation, Lt. Tise was killed when the police cruiser he was driving was run over by a motor grader operated by one of the suspects. Another Winston-Salem police officer, Dan Dodder, was injured during the incident. Four teenaged residents of the city were charged with murder in connection with Lt. Tise’s death.
Nearly all radio and telephone communications relating to the incident were recorded on magnetic tapes by the Winston-Salem Police Communications Center. The recordings included telephone communications between private citizens and police, and radio communications between the police officers who were on the scene, and between those officers and the police dispatcher. The recordings were subsequently transcribed and retained by the Winston-Salem Police Department at the behest of the Honorable Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney for the Twenty-First Prosecutorial District.
The plaintiff, the Winston-Salem Journal, thereafter sought to inspect, examine and obtain copies of the recorded communications pursuant to the Public Records Act, N.C.G.S. § 132-1, et seq. The defendant, through the chief of police, initially denied the plaintiff’s request. However, the majority of the recordings were subsequently released to the plaintiff. The only recordings which were not released contained communications or reports by Lt. Tise and Officer Dodder to the Police Communications Center.
The plaintiff filed this action pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132-9, seeking a declaration that the recordings are “public records” and subject to inspection and copying. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel the release of the material and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed.
This Court allowed the plaintiff’s petition for discretionary review prior to determination by the Court of Appeals.
Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, by Hugh Stevens and Katherine R. White, for plaintiff-appellants.
Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by William Kearns Davis and Stephen M. Russell; City of Winston-Salem, by Ronald G. Seeber; and Winston-Salem Police Department, by Mary Claire McNaught, for defendant-appellees.
North Carolina League of Municipalities, by S. Ellis Hankins, General Counsel, and Kimberly L. Smith, Assistant General Counsel, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
WEBB, Justice.
The copies of recordings the plaintiff seeks to obtain in this case were unquestionably gathered by the Winston-Salem Police Department in the course of a criminal investigation and are part of the State's file in a pending criminal action. Article 48 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes provides for discovery, only by the defendant, of materials in the possession of the State for use in a criminal action.
The plaintiff contends it is entitled to copies of the recordings under Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, the Public Records Act. N.C.G.S. § 132-1 provides in part:
"Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, . . . sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, . . . made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions.
N.C.G.S. § 132-6 provides that any person may examine public records and have copies made of them. It does seem that with nothing else appearing, N.C.G.S. § 132-1 provides that the recordings at issue in this case are public records which should be subject to inspection and copying by the plaintiff. See News and Observer Publishing Co. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 7 (1992).
In this case something else does appear. Article 48 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes provides for discovery in criminal actions. If the Public Records Act applies to information the State procures for use in a criminal action, there would be no need for Article 48. A criminal defendant could obtain much more extensive discovery under the Public Records Act. It is illogical to assume that the General Assembly would preclude a criminal defendant from obtaining certain investigatory information pursuant to the criminal discovery statutes while at the same time mandating the release of this information to the defendant, as well as the media and general public, under the Public Records Act.
If we were to adopt the position advocated by the plaintiffs, that Chapter 132 applies in this case, the files of every district attorney in the state could be subject to release to the public. Among the matters that would have to be released would be the names of confidential informants, the names of undercover agents, and the names of people who had been investigated for the crime but were not charged. We do not believe the General Assembly intended this result. See News and Observer v. State, 312 N.C. 276, 322 S.E.2d 133 (1984).
One canon of construction is that when one statute deals with a particular subject matter in detail, and another statute deals with the same subject matter in general and comprehensive terms, the more specific statute will be construed as controlling. Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966). Article 48 deals specifically with the disclosure of criminal investigative files as opposed to the more general provisions of Chapter 132. We hold that it governs in this case and there is no provision in it for discovery by anyone other than the State or the defendant.
The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.