Title: State v. McKinney
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 47PA14
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: August 21, 2015

NO. COA13-547 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
Filed: 18 February 2014 
 
 
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MANAGEMENT 
INC., a Florida Corporation, and 
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., a 
Georgia Corporation, 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
Wake County 
No. 11 CVS 15832 
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE 
OFFICE OF THE COURTS; JOHN W. 
SMITH II, in his official capacity 
as the Director of the North 
Carolina Administrative Office of 
the Courts; and NANCY LORRIN 
FREEMAN, in her official capacity 
as the Clerk of the Wake County 
Superior Court, 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
Appeal by Plaintiffs from order entered 8 February 2013 by 
Judge James E. Hardin, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court.  Heard 
in the Court of Appeals 24 October 2013. 
 
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by Reed J. Hollander, 
and Meyer, Klipper & Mohr, PLLC, by Christopher A. Mohr, for 
Plaintiffs. 
 
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney 
General Grady L. Balentine, Jr., for Defendants. 
 
Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, by W. Jerad Rissler, for amicus 
curiae Consumer Data Industry Association. 
 
-2- 
 
 
Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych, PLLC, by Hugh Stevens, for 
amici curiae The News and Observer Publishing Co.; Capitol 
Broadcasting 
Company, 
Inc.; 
Time-Warner 
Entertainment-
Advance Newhouse Partnership; DTH Media Corp.; and the North 
Carolina Press Foundation, Inc. 
 
 
STEPHENS, Judge. 
 
 
Procedural History and Factual Background 
This appeal raises the issue of whether the Automated 
Criminal/Infraction System database (“ACIS”) is subject to public 
disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act, N.C. Gen. 
Stat. § 132-1 et seq. (“the Act”).  In its order dismissing the 
matter on the pleadings, the trial court summarized the factual 
background of the case as follows:  
1. The parties agree there are no facts in 
dispute and the matter before the [trial 
c]ourt is a question of law. 
 
2. Plaintiffs’ corporations [(collectively 
“Lexis”)], which aggregate information from a 
variety of public sources, load and operate 
databases, and offer information services to 
government and private sector clients, bring 
this action pursuant to the Public Records 
Act. 
 
3. Defendant Administrative Office of the 
Courts [(“the AOC”)] administers, supports, 
and maintains [ACIS] for the elected [c]lerks 
of [s]uperior [c]ourt for the 100 counties of 
the State of North Carolina for use as the 
electronic storage index of their criminal 
records. 
 
-3- 
 
 
4. ACIS is a real-time criminal records 
database that is a compilation of the criminal 
court records, including records subject to 
disclosure 
and 
records 
not 
subject 
to 
disclosure, of the 100 [c]lerks of [s]uperior 
[c]ourt. 
 
5. The various [c]lerks of [s]uperior [c]ourt 
enter 
the 
information 
contained 
in 
the 
database in real time from the physical 
records contained in each of their respective 
offices.1  As such, the compilation of records 
stored in ACIS is constantly changing.  The 
information in the database is exactly what is 
entered by the [c]lerks of [s]uperior [c]ourt, 
and changes to the information are made by the 
various [c]lerks accordingly.  Not every 
employee 
in 
each 
[c]lerk 
of 
[s]uperior 
[c]ourt’s office can access all of the 
information in ACIS, nor can one [c]lerk of 
[s]uperior [c]ourt access the records for 
modification of another [c]lerk. 
 
6. Clerks of [s]uperior [c]ourt have the 
ability to make electronic and paper copies of 
criminal records information they enter in the 
ACIS database that is subject to disclosure, 
and they routinely make such records available 
pursuant to public records requests.  None of 
the 100 [c]lerks of [s]uperior [c]ourt has the 
ability to make an electronic copy of the 
entire ACIS database. 
 
7. Criminal records information contained in 
the 
ACIS 
database 
that 
is 
subject 
to 
disclosure is made available by [the] AOC to 
the public via remote public access and 
extracts of certain information in the ACIS 
database is also made available by [the] AOC 
to private vendors pursuant to agreements 
entered into between them and [the] AOC under 
                     
1 Some information contained in ACIS is entered by other public 
officials. 
-4- 
 
 
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-109.  [The] AOC also makes 
criminal records information contained in the 
ACIS 
database 
available 
to 
various 
governmental agencies pursuant to agreements 
and various statutory mandates. 
 
In the fall of 2011, Lexis sent letters to Defendant John W. 
Smith II, in his official capacity as Director of the AOC, and to 
Defendant Nancy Lorrin Freeman, in her official capacity as the 
elected Clerk of the Wake County Superior Court (“the clerk”).  
Citing the Act, Lexis requested an index2 of all computer databases 
and an electronic copy of the entire ACIS database.3  In a written 
response, the AOC agreed to provide Lexis with “the indexing done 
to date for databases maintained by the []AOC and subject to 
[section] 
132-6.1[,]” 
but 
maintained 
that 
the 
statute’s 
requirement for compiling indexes “does not apply to databases 
created before the effective date [of section 132-6.1, and] ACIS 
pre-dates [the effective date.]  A]s a result there is no index of 
ACIS that we can provide you.”4  Both the AOC and the clerk refused 
                     
2 Under the Act, an “index” is a description of various form and 
content details about an agency’s database, and it is undisputed 
that these indexes are public records.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-
6.1(b) (2013).   
 
3 Lexis requested only “non-confidential or non-restricted 
information” in ACIS.  
 
4 Lexis’s complaint, discussed supra, did not contain any 
allegations regarding an index of ACIS and did not seek a copy 
-5- 
 
 
Lexis’s request for a copy of the ACIS database itself.  The AOC 
asserted that ACIS is a mainframe application which serves as a 
record-keeping tool for clerks of court statewide, but that the 
individual clerks are the custodians of the actual records.  
Because the Act provides that the duty to disclose public records 
lies with their custodian, the AOC asserted that it had “no records 
responsive to” Lexis’s request for an electronic copy of ACIS.  
The clerk asserted that, while she could enter information from 
her county’s criminal records into ACIS, she lacked the ability to 
make a copy of the entire database.  Accordingly, the clerk also 
informed Lexis that she had “no records responsive to” its request. 
On 13 October 2011, Lexis filed a complaint alleging that the 
clerk’s and the AOC’s refusal to provide an electronic copy of the 
ACIS database violates the Act.  Lexis sought declarations that 
the ACIS database is a public record under the Act and that the 
AOC and/or the clerk are custodians of ACIS, as well as an order 
requiring the release of ACIS as a public record pursuant to the 
Act.  Defendants filed a joint answer on 15 December 2011.  On 6 
February 2012, Lexis moved for judgment on the pleadings.  
Following a hearing, by order entered 8 February 2013, the trial 
                     
thereof.  Accordingly, the AOC’s refusal to provide Lexis with an 
index of ACIS was not before the trial court and is not before 
this Court on appeal. 
-6- 
 
 
court denied Lexis’s motion, granted judgment on the pleadings in 
favor of Defendants, and dismissed the matter.  Lexis appeals.   
Discussion 
On appeal, Lexis brings forward four arguments:  that the 
trial court (1) misapplied the standard for judgment on the 
pleadings by assuming the counter-allegations in Defendants’ 
answer to be true, and erred in (2) failing to address whether 
ACIS is a public record subject to disclosure under the Act, (3) 
concluding that the AOC is not the custodian of ACIS, and (4) 
denying disclosure of ACIS pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-109(d).  
Because they are closely related and are dispositive of the merits 
of Lexis’s position on appeal, we address Lexis’s second and third 
arguments together.  We reverse and remand the trial court’s order 
as to the AOC.  In light of this result, we do not address Lexis’s 
first argument.  We affirm as to the clerk.5 
                     
5 Despite having named the clerk as a defendant, Lexis did not 
contend in the trial court or on appeal that the clerk is actually 
the custodian of the ACIS database.  As discussed herein, under 
the Act, only the “custodian” of public records has a duty to 
provide copies thereof upon request.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6(a) 
(2013) (providing that “[e]very custodian of public records shall 
. . . furnish copies thereof . . . .”).  All parties agree that 
the clerk did not create ACIS and does not have the ability to 
make a copy of the database.  On appeal, Lexis does not argue that 
the trial court erred in concluding that the clerk did not violate 
the Act when she refused Lexis’s request for a copy of the ACIS 
database.  Accordingly, we affirm the order to the extent it 
concludes that the clerk did not violate the Act. 
-7- 
 
 
 
 
Standard of Review 
 
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on 
the pleadings de novo.  Toomer v. Branch Banking & Trust. Co., 171 
N.C. App. 58, 66, 614 S.E.2d 328, 335, disc. review denied, 360 
N.C. 78, 623 S.E.2d 263 (2005).  “Under a de novo review, the 
[appellate] court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes 
its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.”  Craig v. New 
Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 
(2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).   
I. ACIS is a public record and the AOC is its custodian  
 
Lexis argues that the ACIS database is a “public record” as 
defined in the Act and the AOC is its custodian.  We agree. 
 
The Act provides that 
“[p]ublic record” or “public records” shall 
mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, 
books, photographs, films, sound recordings, 
magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-
processing 
records, 
artifacts, 
or 
other 
documentary material, regardless of physical 
form or characteristics, 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. Gen. Stat. § 132-1(a) (2013) (emphasis added).  Further,  
-8- 
 
 
[e]very custodian of public records shall 
permit any record in the custodian’s custody 
to be inspected and examined at reasonable 
times and under reasonable supervision by any 
person, and shall, as promptly as possible, 
furnish copies thereof upon payment of any 
fees as may be prescribed by law.  As used 
herein, “custodian” does not mean an agency 
that holds the public records of other 
agencies solely for purposes of storage or 
safekeeping 
or 
solely 
to 
provide 
data 
processing. 
 
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6(a).  
Both parties agree that the individual criminal records of 
the clerks of court are public records and that the clerks are the 
custodians of those records.  As required by the Act, the clerk of 
court in each county will, upon request, provide copies of the 
criminal records for his or her county.6  The disputed issues are 
whether ACIS, the database compiling information from those 
records, is a public record and, if so, whether the AOC is its 
custodian.   
As for the first issue, we agree with Lexis’s assertion that, 
once the clerks of court enter information from their criminal 
records into ACIS, the database becomes a new public record 
                     
6 As noted supra, the trial court found, and Lexis does not dispute, 
that the individual clerks of court cannot provide the records 
from any other counties or make a copy of the entire ACIS database. 
 
-9- 
 
 
“existing distinctly and separately from” the individual criminal 
records from which it is created.7  The plain language of the Act 
includes “electronic data-processing records” in its definition of 
public records.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1(a).  In turn, a database 
is a 
[c]ollection of data or information organized 
for rapid search and retrieval, especially by 
a computer.  Databases are structured to 
facilitate storage, retrieval, modification, 
and deletion of data in conjunction with 
various 
data-processing 
operations. 
 
A 
database consists of a file or set of files 
that can be broken down into records, each of 
which consists of one or more fields.  Fields 
are the basic units of data storage.  Users 
retrieve 
database 
information 
primarily 
through queries.  Using keywords and sorting 
commands, users can rapidly search, rearrange, 
group, and select the field in many records to 
retrieve or create reports on particular 
aggregates of data according to the rules of 
the database management system being used. 
 
“Database.” 
 
Merriam-Webster.com. 
Concise 
Encyclopedia, 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/database 
(last 
visited 
Jan. 23, 2014) (emphasis added).  Thus, we conclude that the ACIS 
database falls squarely within the definition of a public record 
as an electronic data-processing record.8 
                     
7 As Lexis correctly observes, the trial court’s order does not 
contain a conclusion of law about whether ACIS is a public record. 
8 Further, we note that the ACIS database would certainly be 
encompassed under the Act’s broadly worded catch-all provision 
-10- 
 
 
Next, as noted supra, the Act provides that the custodian of 
public records has the duty to provide the public with copies of 
those records when requested.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6(a).  The 
AOC argues that it is not the custodian of the criminal records 
whose information is used to create ACIS.  We agree, but find this 
assertion inapposite.  Lexis is not seeking copies of the criminal 
records, but rather a copy of ACIS.   
We also reject as misplaced the AOC’s related argument that 
it is not the custodian of the information contained in ACIS.  The 
Act does not refer to custodians of information but of records.  
See id.  The plain language of the Act requires custodians to 
provide copies of their public records and nothing in the Act 
suggests that this requirement is obviated because the information 
contained in a public record is publically available from some 
other source.  Many public records contain information that is 
derived from and/or contained in other public records.  For 
example, a city council might use information from its police 
department to create a report about crime statistics within its 
borders during a given year.  Even though the information in the 
city council’s report came from the police department and is 
                     
including “other documentary material” in the definition of public 
records.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1(a). 
-11- 
 
 
available in the police department’s own public records, the city 
council’s report is still a public record and the city council is 
the custodian of its report.  Our State’s Department of Justice 
might use information from the city council’s report in creating 
a chart comparing crime rates in many different cities.  That chart 
would in turn become a new public record in the custody of the 
Department.  Here, the AOC has admitted that it created, maintains, 
and controls ACIS and is the only entity with the ability to copy 
the database.  Thus, ACIS is not the public record of another 
agency.  Rather, ACIS is a record of the AOC and in the AOC’s 
custody.   
Further, we find irrelevant the AOC’s observations that 
individual clerks of court input information from their counties’ 
criminal records into ACIS and retain the sole ability to alter 
the information they input.  In opposing the AOC’s argument on 
this point, Lexis cites News & Observer Pub. Co. v. Poole, 330 
N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 7 (1992).  In Poole, the plaintiffs sought 
materials . . . compiled on behalf of a 
commission appointed by the president of the 
University of North Carolina system of higher 
education.  The Commission’s purpose was to 
investigate and report on certain alleged 
improprieties relating to the men’s basketball 
team at North Carolina State University 
(NCSU), 
one 
of 
the 
system’s 
component 
universities. . . . 
 
-12- 
 
 
The records sought to be disclosed [we]re 
investigative 
reports 
prepared 
for 
the 
Commission by special agents of the State 
Bureau of Investigation (SBI), Commission 
minutes, 
and 
draft 
reports 
prepared 
by 
individual Commission members. 
 
Id. at 470, 412 S.E.2d at 10 (emphasis added).  The Commission 
acknowledged that many of the materials it generated or gathered 
were public records, but argued that the reports prepared by the 
SBI were not public records, citing a statutory provision which 
specifically exempts records and evidence created by the SBI from 
the definition of public records under the Act.  Id. (citation 
omitted).  The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that, “when the 
SBI submitted its investigative reports to the Commission, they 
became Commission records.  As such they are subject to the Public 
Records Law and must be disclosed to the same extent that other 
Commission materials must be disclosed under that law.”  Id. at 
473, 412 S.E.2d at 12.  Thus, the rule established by Poole is 
that, even when one government agency wholly creates a record and 
then simply delivers a copy of that record to a second agency, the 
second agency becomes a custodian of the record under the Act.  
See id.   
Here, the case for disclosure under the Act is even stronger 
than in Poole.  The clerks of court have not simply made copies of 
their records and sent them to the AOC.  Rather, as explained 
-13- 
 
 
supra, the clerks have acted at the direction of the AOC to create 
an entirely new and distinct public record, to wit, ACIS.  See 
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-109(a) (2013) (“Each clerk [of court] shall 
maintain such records, files, dockets[,] and indexes as are 
prescribed by rules of the Director of the [AOC].”).  For all the 
reasons stated above, we hold that ACIS is a public record in the 
custody of the AOC. 
II. Effect of section 7A-109(d) 
We also agree with Lexis that the trial court erred in 
concluding that requiring the AOC to provide a copy of ACIS upon 
request would “negate the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-
109(d)[.]”   
Subsection (d) of the statute provides: 
In order to facilitate public access to court 
records, 
except 
where 
public 
access 
is 
prohibited by law, the Director [of the AOC] 
may enter into one or more nonexclusive 
contracts under reasonable cost recovery terms 
with 
third 
parties 
to 
provide 
remote 
electronic access to the records by the 
public. . . . 
 
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-109(d).  Nothing in this subsection limits 
the public’s ability to obtain copies of public records under the 
Act.  The plain language of this subsection simply allows the AOC 
to offer an additional method of access to “court records” via 
“remote electronic access[.]”  Id.  Here, Lexis is not seeking 
-14- 
 
 
remote electronic access to ACIS, but rather has requested a copy 
of the entire database.  As such, the provisions of section 7A-
109(d) are inapposite. 
We are sympathetic to the AOC’s argument that, if copies of 
the entire ACIS database are available upon request under the Act, 
third parties may be discouraged from entering into “contracts 
under reasonable cost recovery terms . . . to provide remote 
electronic access to [court] records . . . .”  Id.  However, we 
note that section 7A-109(d) is expressly permissive, rather than 
mandatory.  See id. (providing that “the Director [of the AOC] may 
enter into one or more nonexclusive contracts under reasonable 
cost recovery terms with third parties”) (emphasis added).  If 
provision of copies of ACIS under the Act renders the option of 
providing remote electronic access unnecessary or not cost-
effective, the AOC can simply decline to offer this additional 
method of access.   
Our Supreme Court has directed “that in the absence of clear 
statutory exemption or exception, documents falling within the 
definition of ‘public records’ in the [Act] must be made available 
for public inspection.”  Poole, 330 N.C. at 486, 412 S.E.2d at 19 
(emphasis added).  We conclude there is no clear statutory 
exemption 
or 
exception 
applicable 
to 
the 
ACIS 
database.  
-15- 
 
 
Accordingly, as to the AOC, the order of the trial court is 
reversed.  We remand the matter to the trial court with directions 
to enter judgment for Lexis. 
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part. 
Judges GEER and ERVIN concur.