- Private law enforcement group Allied Universal Security Services is asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to reject a petition from Charlotte television reporter Nick Ochsner.
- Ochsner wants state courts to forced Allied Universal to release the names and addresses of two security guards involved in the fatal 2023 shooting of a trespasser at an office park.
- Lower courts have ruled against Ochsner, including a 2-1 decision on March 5 from the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
A private law enforcement agency is asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to reject a petition from Charlotte television news reporter Nick Ochsner. He seeks the names and addresses of two security guards involved in a fatal 2023 shooting.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling on March 5 rejecting Ochsner’s request. He filed a petition with the state’s highest court two weeks later.
“This case is about a news reporter’s efforts to receive more than he is allowed under public records law,” wrote lawyers representing Allied Universal Security Services in a court filing Monday. “In the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and now here, Petitioner seeks to use the North Carolina Public Records Act to get the names and addresses of two security guards employed by Allied Universal who were involved in an unfortunate shooting.”
“The problem, however, is that, under the Act, criminal investigation records like those at issue here are confidential,” Allied Universal’s lawyers wrote. “Although this rule has some exceptions, none requires the disclosure of the guards’ identities on these facts. And to the extent Petitioner sought any other information arising from the incident, Petitioner has received all the records to which he is entitled.”
“Disappointed that two courts have denied him the information he wants, Petitioner seeks this Court’s discretionary review. To justify this Court’s involvement, he argues that allowing the Court of Appeals’ decision to stand will place in jeopardy the public’s right to access public records from private law enforcement agencies like Allied Universal,” the court filing continued.
“Petitioner exaggerates the importance of his case. This is a narrow dispute about whether this particular Petitioner, in these specific circumstances, got all he is entitled to get under the law. His dispute thus lacks the broad public or legal impact needed for this Court to step in,” the private law enforcement group’s lawyers argued.
“Indeed, the Court of Appeals’ decision is unpublished, giving it no impact on future cases or the rights of anyone but the parties. Petitioner also fails to identify any conflict between the decision below and this Court’s precedents. His issue is not with the Court of Appeals’ understanding of the relevant law; it is with how the Court of Appeals applied that law to his specific facts. That is no conflict,” the court filing added.
Ochsner wants courts to force Allied Universal to release names and addresses of two security guards involved in the shooting of a trespasser at the “former EpiCentre site” in Charlotte in September 2023.
The Appeals Court decision “wrongly holds that a private law enforcement company commissioned by the Attorney General pursuant to the Company Police Act … has no public disclosure obligations in the wake of a deadly shooting,” wrote Ochsner’s lawyer, Lauren Russell, in March.
“By affirming the trial court’s ruling shielding Allied Universal Security (AUS) from producing any public records – or even supplying potentially responsive records for in camera review – the majority’s decision creates a double standard in which private law enforcement companies, who wield the same power as state and municipal police, do not share the same obligations of public transparency,” Russell wrote.
Two AUS guards were called in September 2023 to a report of a trespasser urinating outside a commercial building. The trespasser fired a gun at the security guards while attempting to flee, according to the Appeals Court opinion in the case.
After the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department arrived to investigate the shooting, Ochsner “requested from both AUS and CMPD the names and addresses of the AUS security guards involved in the shooting. CMPD provided some information to Petitioner but ultimately declined the request to reveal the identities of the AUS officers. AUS did not disclose any information to Petitioner,” the majority opinion explained.
“On appeal, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in determining that AUS was not required to produce any records or communications pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132.1-4(c),” wrote Appeals Court Chief Judge Chris Dillon in an unpublished opinion. Unpublished opinions have limited value as precedents for future cases.
“We conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to AUS employee identities,” Dillon wrote. “We note that no one was arrested, charged, or indicted for the shooting. No one was placed under arrest for the shooting. There was no complaining witness concerning the shooting.”
Judge John Tyson joined Dillon’s opinion. Both are Republicans. Judge Toby Hampson, a Democrat, dissented.
“Certainly, AUS has a duty to provide public records related to its officers’ initial response to the report of public urination,” Hampson wrote. “The majority, however, reasons that as AUS was not the investigative authority with respect to the shooting, AUS has no duty whatsoever to comply with public records requests.”
“In my view, this narrow analysis parsing out a developing law enforcement investigation into separate incidents — and thus carving out AUS from any responsibility to provide public records or to present potentially applicable records for in camera judicial review — is erroneous,” the dissent added.
“At a minimum, the trial court’s order should be vacated and this matter remanded to compel AUS to at least produce pertinent records for review related to its investigation and response to the reported event … on the night in question,” Hampson wrote. “This includes — rather than excludes — the shooting. The shooting was part of the AUS investigation into the alleged public urination/trespassing complaint.”