Appellate Court of MD: Freedom of Information; correctional videos

Listen to this article

Freedom of Information; correctional videos

BOTTOM LINE: Where the circuit court ordered the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to produce a video of a fatal stabbing to the father of the inmate who was killed, as well as video records depicting officials’ response, it did not err.

CASE: Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Proctor Sr., No. 2295, Sept. Term, 2024 (filed May 12, 2026) (Judges Berger, Kehoe, HOTTEN).

FACTS: Terry Proctor Sr., the personal representative of the Estate of his deceased son, Terry Proctor Jr., submitted a request under the Maryland Public Information Act, or MPIA, for records surrounding the death of his son at the hands of another inmate. Following the refusal by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to disclose the requested materials, he filed suit in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment and order compelling their production.

The circuit court, following a hearing, subsequently ordered the Department to produce two specific record items: a surveillance video documenting the decedent’s death and Independent Investigations Division, or IID, video records depicting the prison employees’ response thereto. The Department now appeals that ruling, asserting that various statutory justifications under the MPIA preclude disclosure.

LAW: The Department maintains some measure of discretionary authority to withhold investigatory records from public inspection. As such, before determining whether the circuit court erred in ordering disclosure, the court must determine whether the surveillance video meets the investigatory records exemption under Gen. Prov. § 4-351. It does.

The surveillance video falls within the protections of § 4-351(a)(2) because it serves as a foundational element for both criminal and administrative investigations. The surveillance video depicts Mr. Allen “entering the victim’s bunk, attacking him, and leaving.” Under § 4-351(a)(2), this footage is maintained for a “correctional purpose,” as the facility must review the recording to identify internal security breaches, staff negligence, or violations of institutional rules.

Furthermore, the record serves a “prosecution purpose” under § 4-351(a)(2) because the State’s Attorney can use the recording to establish the actus reus in Mr. Allen’s criminal case. Consequently, the surveillance video is an investigatory record under § 4-351(a)(2) because it is “an investigatory file compiled for correctional, [and] prosecution purpose[s].”

Because the surveillance video is an investigatory record under § 4-351(a)(2), the Department has discretion to withhold inspection, so long as appellee is not a “person in interest” and disclosure would not trigger the conditions set forth under § 4-351(b). The resolution of this dispute, therefore, first hinges on whether appellee qualifies for the enhanced inspection rights afforded to “persons in interest.” He does.

A party is a “person in interest” when they are “a person . . . that is the subject of a public record or a designee of the person. . .”. Under the plain language of § 4-101(g), the decedent is the “subject” of the record, given that his final moments and subsequent death are the focal point of the captured footage. Thus, appellee is a “person in interest,” insofar as he serves as the legal successor to the “subject” of the surveillance video.

Further, the decedent is the “person who is investigated” by virtue of the physical trauma and death he experienced, which constitutes the primary focus of the surveillance footage. Insofar as the Department used the video to examine the decedent’s cause and manner of death, the decedent becomes the central focus of the investigation.

Since appellee is granted enhanced inspection rights as a “person in interest,” the Department has the burden of proving that nondisclosure is justified under one of the specific exemptions enumerated under § 4-351(b). Here, the Department argues the exemptions of §§ 4-351(b)(1) and (3) apply because disclosure would “interfere with a valid and proper law enforcement proceeding” and “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” This court agrees with the circuit court that the Department fails to meet its burden.

Turning to the IDD records, the circuit court determined they were “personnel records.” This court disagrees. A video documenting an employee’s response to an urgent matter does not become a “personnel record” solely because it might later be used for disciplinary review. The record contains no evidence suggesting the video recordings address substantive “personnel issues,” such as performance evaluations or formal assessments of an employee’s job competence. Furthermore, the Department fails to demonstrate how a record becomes a “personnel record” simply because it is stored within a broader “personnel record.”

Under Gen. Prov. § 4-358 and § 4-343, the Department may only withhold these records if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Given that prison staff remained unaware of a stabbing until alerted by the assailant, the record suggests a degree of negligence. Granting appellee access to these videos facilitates a better understanding of the delayed response, which directly serves the public interest by informing potential legislative reforms and systemic improvements.

Judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirmed.