In a ruling Wednesday, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the law which required manual guides for executions to be released under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
In its ruling, which reversed a 2014 circuit court decision, the high court said current and prior manuals are not obligated to be released due to public safety concerns, which constitute an exemption.
Concerns arose about releasing the documents because the manuals contain detailed architectural plans of the execution chamber and information on the wiring and handling of the electric chair.
The Department of Corrections argued against making this information public and said it poses a security risk for all individuals involved in executions.
A majority of the justices determined government agencies complying with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act are not obligated to redact words or passages from sensitive documents, which means the document does not legally have to be disclosed if any part of it is determined to hold a safety concern. Justice Cleo E. Powell wrote on behalf of the majority.
“The wording of the statute applies the exclusion to the entire drawing, manual, minutes or record and makes it disclosable only at the discretion of the custodian,” Powell said.
The decision suggests public officials will be able to withhold public access to pertinent documents in the future, said Megan Rhyne, the Virginia Coalition for Open Government executive director.
“The way that the Supreme Court phrased this part of the ruling opens the door for governments to withhold entire records simply because one portion of them contains some exempt material,” Rhyne said.
Rhyne did not argue against redacting certain portions of the manuals, but said government agencies have a responsibility to redact necessary parts and release the rest of the information.
“The legislature could fix this problem by clarifying the duty to redact,” Rhyne said. “It is certainly my hope that they will look at it seriously from an open government standpoint.”
University Law Prof. Brandon L. Garrett said there are good precedents to argue there is a constitutional entitlement to information about procedures and drugs used in state executions.
“The ruling sets a troubling precedent for free access to information in the Commonwealth,” Garrett said in an email statement.
The decision does not impact in any way the personal civil and litigation rights of inmates on death row, Garrett said.
University Democrats Vice President Sam Tobin, a third-year College student, said the organization does not support the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision and believes it to be in violation of the rights represented by the Freedom of Information Act.
“The public has a right to know what is going on with the executions in their state,” Tobin said. “There is not enough of a legitimate reason for the state to prevent information from being released.”
Tobin cited high-profile, controversial executions in Oklahoma and Ohio in the past two years as incentives for increased transparency.
“There is vested interest for the public to know what is going on in terms of our prisons and executions,” Tobin said.
Read More
The ‘Batten Curve’ — what’s the big deal?
By Bennett Galper and Nina Broderick | 2 days agoBatten students are also involved in conversations about potential policy changes, with some taking an active role in advocacy efforts.
UJC sees “major influx” of cases with 38 adjudicated so far this term
By Ford McCracken | 3 days agoAlongside an increase in cases, the Committee saw increased interest during recruitment
Shots fired reported on 800 block of Hardy Drive
By Thomas Baxter | 4 days agoLongo said to avoid the area for the time being.
