Federal Appeals Court unseals video in 2019 Charlotte law enforcement shooting

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a Charlotte television station’s request to unseal law enforcement video footage linked to a 2019 shooting involving two police officers. A federal trial judge had rejected WBTV’s request.

Gastonia police officer Clarence Belton sued Charlotte-Mecklenburg officer Heather Loveridge in connection with the shooting. A unanimous 4th Circuit panel ruled in February that Loveridge can try again to seek immunity from the suit.

A different appellate panel determined Friday that WBTV should have access to video evidence related to the case.

“The media play a crucial role in ensuring public access to judicial documents and records, thereby fostering accountability and transparency,” wrote Judge Nicole Berner for the unanimous panel. “’[T]he public and press have a qualified right of access to judicial documents and records filed in civil and criminal proceedings.’ This qualified right promotes both the public interest and the integrity of the judicial process. When the right arises under the First Amendment, each day that passes without disclosure could constitute a separate and cognizable infringement.”

“These principles of public access and the role of the media lie at the heart of this case,” Berner added.

The 4th Circuit agreed with US District Judge Max Cogburn that WBTV had no right to intervene in the case. But appellate judges disagreed with Cogburn’s ruling that the television station had no right to the video footage. The Appeals Court also disagreed with Cogburn that Loveridge’s right to a fair trial outweighed WBTV’s interest in the case.

“The district court’s order sealing the video footage violated the well-established rights of the press and of the public to access judicial documents and records,” Berner wrote. “We therefore vacate in part and reverse in part the order of the district court and remand with instructions to unseal the video footage at issue.”

The 4th Circuit weighed Loveridge’s interests against WBTV’s constitutional rights.

“Loveridge contends that her right to a fair trial outweighs the right of the public and press to access the video exhibits,” Berner wrote. “This court has recognized instances where that may be true. … Yet the district court’s sealing of all the video exhibits in their entirety was not narrowly tailored to protect Loveridge’s right to a fair trial. Loveridge did not address narrow tailoring, nor did she present any evidence, reasoning, or argument as to why specifically her right to a fair trial would be impacted by the wholesale or partial unsealing of the videos. Loveridge’s arguments before the district court were devoid of any support beyond mere summary conclusions that her right to a fair trial would be impaired.”

“Loveridge bears the burden of overcoming WBTV’s First Amendment right of access as she is seeking to have the court suppress WBTV’s First Amendment right of access,” Berner wrote. “Because Loveridge never addressed how her right to a fair trial would be impacted — particularly in light of the fact that Belton and Loveridge both described in detail the events of the shooting in their court filings and that the events of the shooting have been made public in the news — we hold that Loveridge failed to meet the high burden of demonstrating that her right to a fair trial would overcome WBTV’s clear and indisputable right of access to the video exhibits.”

Judges James Wynn and Julius Richardson joined Berner’s opinion.

Loveridge shot Belton, an FBI Safe Streets Task Force officer, as a law enforcement team attempted to serve a search warrant at a Charlotte home, according to court records.

Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte. Cogburn denied Loveridge’s request to have the lawsuit against her thrown out because of her immunity as a police officer.

“The district court concluded that because the facts material to liability were disputed and therefore precluded summary judgment on the merits, the facts material to immunity were also disputed and therefore precluded granting Officer Loveridge immunity,” Appeals Court Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote in February. “But in doing so, the court failed to conduct the distinct analysis required for determining immunity, which includes identifying the clearly established constitutional right that Officer Loveridge violated either knowingly or because she was plainly incompetent in light of clearly established law.”

“Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings,” Niemeyer added.

Loveridge and another Charlotte officer joined Belton and three other FBI task force officers on Nov. 1, 2019, when they attempted to execute a search warrant at the Charlotte home of Larry McConneyhead, who was suspected of trafficking methamphetamine.

A fellow FBI officer shot Belton in the arm as officers forced their way into the home, Niemeyer explained. Belton dropped his gun, fell to the ground, and crawled to seek cover.

“When the shots were fired, Officer Loveridge, who was just outside the garage door, fired behind the two exiting TFOs at TFO Belton, who was on the ground, believing that he was McConneyhead,” Niemeyer wrote. “In a single burst, she fired over 10 shots in Belton’s direction in the course of a few seconds. When someone yelled, ‘He’s a cop,’ Officer Loveridge immediately stopped firing. She then called on her radio, ‘10-33, officer down, we need MEDIC now’ and attempted to provide aid to TFO Belton while waiting for the arrival of the medics.”

Belton suffered wounds to both arms “that required several surgeries.” His permanent injuries ended his law enforcement work, Niemeyer wrote.

The Mecklenburg County district attorney decided not to seek charges against Loveridge. The police department’s Internal Affairs Bureau found she had violated a departmental directive on the use of deadly force and recommended her dismissal, according to the court opinion.

Belton pursued a federal excessive force claim against Loveridge, along with state law claims of negligence, assault and battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

“Officer Loveridge filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the record established that her conduct was lawful and that she was, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal excessive force claim and public officers’ immunity as to the state tort claims,” Niemeyer wrote. “The district court denied her motion, concluding that, on the substantive claims, there were genuine disputes of material fact.”

“It explained that Loveridge and TFO Belton disputed the quality of lighting inside the garage; what Loveridge could see before she shot at Belton; and indeed whether Loveridge had an opportunity to see Belton before the incident occurred,” the Appeals Court opinion continued. “As to qualified immunity, the court observed that ‘[q]ualified immunity does not alter the ordinary rules applicable to summary judgment proceedings,’ and it concluded that ‘a court should deny summary judgment on qualified immunity when a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the circumstances under which the officer … used force against the plaintiff.’”

Yet Cogburn “failed to conduct the established and distinct analysis required” in this type of case, Niemeyer wrote.

“Under the well-established analysis, Officer Loveridge would be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless (1) she violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time she acted,” the 4th Circuit explained.

“Thus, in this case, while it is clear that Officer Loveridge did indeed seize Belton when she shot him, the key question is whether that seizure was unreasonable,” Niemeyer wrote. “A court would have to resolve whether the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in the particular circumstances that Officer Loveridge faced.”

A trial judge assessing Belton’s constitutional claim also needs “to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established,” Niemeyer added.

“Because the district court in this case failed to conduct the immunity analysis, particularly by failing to identify the clearly established right at issue, we vacate the court’s order and remand to enable it to conduct the appropriate analysis,” he explained. “And similarly, because officers are not entitled to public officers’ immunity under North Carolina law if they violate clearly established rights, we likewise vacate and remand the district court’s determination that Officer Loveridge was not entitled to immunity on Belton’s state law claims.”

Judges Stephanie Thacker and Marvin Quattlebaum joined Niemeyer’s decision.