There is footage but the law won't release it
Footage exists of the police killing of Andrew Brown Jr.m but even the police are prevented by law from releasing it.
This morning, we are presented with a rare and troubling situation: The district attorney in Pasquotank County, North Carolina, can clear the officers who killed Andrew Brown Jr. by shooting him in the back of the head without releasing video showing the killing because he is prevented from doing so under state law.
That’s because North Carolina’s body camera law only allows for family and other representatives of those harmed by police to view such footage, unless a judge orders its release after media or other parties appeal. A judge in Pasquotank County has already denied such an appeal, saying it could affect a future trial. (It goes without saying, of course, that police and prosecutors routinely release evidence on alleged criminal suspects to the media ahead of those criminal trials.)
So, county lawmakers passed a resolution last night asking the state legislature to change North Carolina’s horrendous body camera law. That may happen in the event of widespread protest or unrest if the district attorney announces this morning that the officers won’t be charged. Brown’s killing has caused much distress in the community, due in no small part to the failure of the judge to release the footage. Brown’s family was allowed to see about 20 seconds worth of footage that showed officers firing on him, apparently from behind, as he had his hands on the steering wheel of his vehicle. Later, Brown’s family saw more footage of the killing in which they claim Brown was “ambushed” and essentially executed — one of the bullets entered the back of his head. Since then, nothing.
As it happens, an old contact has been in Elizabeth City dutifully covering the Brown case. Eugene Daniel and I go way back, all the way to Peoria where we’d run into each other at shootings, homicides, fires, traffic accidents, press conferences and government meetings, him for the local CBS affiliate and me for the Journal Star. He enjoyed a decade in the River City, where he worked with civic organizations and took seriously his position as anchor, serving as a role model for a Black community often overlooked in my hometown, before heading back to North Carolina, where he’s from.
There could be no better person to catch us up to speed on the Brown case, so I called Eugene up this morning to do just that.
JG: What is this presser even going to entail?
ED: The DA is going to be sharing about the results of the investigation by the State Bureau of Investigation. So that is what this is about, and that is all that we really know. We don’t know if this will be a conversation about any potential charges for the officers involved.
JG: Last night the county board passed a resolution asking the state legislature to address a very restrictive body camera law. What prompted that decision and will anything come of it?
ED: The county held an emergency meeting and in this emergency meeting, which was very short, less than 10 minutes, they read a resolution and immediately passed a resolution in which they declared — which has become a very critical part of the shooting of Andrew Brown Jr. and the investigation thereafter — they declared that the law was in the way of transparency. Specifically they’re looking at the section that does not allow for the sheriff or the law enforcement agency in an individual case to have the ability to share that video. This law that was passed in 2016, and says that body cam or dashcam video are not considered public records, and that’s why a judge denied an appeal to have the footage released to the public.
JG: That’s interesting; I didn’t know the law was so new. It’s also interesting because that was at a time, after Ferguson, where states and local governments and law enforcement agencies around the country were re-examining their rules and laws in the interest of transparency. North Carolina seems to have gone the opposite way.
ED: From conversations with attorneys and also, I interviewed the AG last week, apparently the idea behind the law was to have some sort of process in place so that they would be handled in the courts. When I’ve talked to several attorneys they’ve said they believe the heart of putting the bill together was in the right place, that they wanted some form of process and they figured going through the judicial system would be a good way to go about that. When you talk to certain attorneys, they think this is a good thing but when you talk to others, including the AG, they say it’s good intentions but handled the wrong way. Now there’s currently legislation being pushed by lawmakers in NC to change that. I’m confident that this case is bringing up the conversation even more.
JG: What about this case is making them rethink it? What would have been different if this law was different and the footage had already been released?
ED: We have a case here where the sheriff has petitioned for the release of the footage and according to the law cannot do so without a judge’s orders. And the judge denied the request to release it from a group of media organizations.
JG: It seems hypocritical to say the least that you have a law that potentially shields evidence of criminal wrongdoing to be released to the public when you and I both know that police and prosecutors release that type of evidence all the time on criminal suspects.
ED: That’s where this law comes into play. There’s a lot of people in this community, for instance, that were not aware of this law until now. You also have to think about the moment. During the time in which the country is wrapping up the trial of Derek Chauvin, and at the same time you had, when the shooting took place, then you have Daunte Wright. And that particular police department released the video that day, so a lot of people are probably seeing that and thinking, Why can’t that happen in North Carolina? But again, this is the law in North Carolina. And the law allowed the family and the lawyers to, first, see about 20 seconds of footage, then for them to see around 19 minutes of what we know collectively is around two hours total.
JG: What was the reason the judge disallowed the other hour and a half?
ED: To answer your question, it’s very specifically stated in the law. It goes down by who can be shown video and what portions you can see. If you are a lawyer, you can see portions of the video where the person you’re representing is viewable. So the understanding (of reporters and the community) is, no, they have not seen the beginning portions of the officers walking up to the scene. All of which is to say, this is why it would be very beneficial for us to see this video.
JG: Wasn’t the initial narrative that he was driving at officers, which was then later contradicted when the autopsy showed he’d been shot from behind?
ED: There’s a witness, a neighbor, who says (Brown) was trying to drive away, and that’s when the officers began shooting. From what we understand, from attorneys and witnesses, is that he was backed into his driveway — someone I talked to said he always backed in — and when police got there they essentially cut him off in the driveway. The attorneys last week said the video that they saw shows the first shot is fired and then Brown backed away from a deputy. And to your point, the DA said the car made contact with deputies. But the family’s attorneys say he was backing away from deputies and one of them reached out and touched Brown’s car, and that Brown was not threatening them. But again, no one has seen the video to be able to discuss this.
JG: What has been the reaction in the community?
ED: So, literally every since the shooting there have been some form of peaceful protest. People have marched most of the days, they’ve held rallies… Tgeir big rallying cry has been, release the tape, the full tape. Look up that law, and as someone who looks into cases like this, you’ll be like, Oh, wow. You have a scenario where the county sheriff has come out and spoken against this law, the county board has spoken out againstthe law, obviously the attorneys want the full tape, the community wants the full release, and the only thing in the way is this law. This is obviously a tragic situation in general but compounded upon that, it’s a perfect storm almost of putting this law to practice. For a lot of people, it’s the first time that they’ve had to encounter this law and watch it play out.
JG: Any final thoughts?
ED: They always say as a reporter you should be balanced so, being able to be in a scenario like this where I can have compassion for the people but also have compassion for the law enforcement side as well, this is where I can shine the brightest. I’m tired because I’m not sleeping a lot but I’m not tired from the situation. A lot of times when you see images of a community angry over a police shooting, and not getting the result that they want immediately, you see these images across the country of people protesting and then it breaks out into something else. Man, this community has been overwhelmingly peaceful. Strategic, making things uncomfortable, for sure — they block traffic every day. To watch that, it’s been interesting because sometimes people expect it go one way, but they’re determined to make it peaceful.