COLUMBIA--The state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that will determine how much information held by local governments is considered public.

Attorneys representing The Post and Courier and the city of North Charleston battled before the court over the issue of access to 911 tapes from the police shooting death of Edward Snowden. Experts said the case, which is rooted in the Freedom of Information Act, could set a dangerous precedent, negatively affecting the media's ability to gather public information in criminal proceedings.

Those concerns appeared on the minds of the five justices, who peppered the city's lawyers during the 35-minute oral arguments with questions and comments about what power a decision in this case might give judges to restrict public information.

Justices also pushed North Charleston's attorneys for a more pressing reason to withhold the tapes other than the city's contention that it might spoil a potential jury pool. As was noted by Chief Justice Jean Toal, there are other options available to guarantee a defendant's right to a fair trial, including moving a trial, if necessary.

"Where is the line drawn in terms of what a judge can and can't do in denying access to records like warrants and indictments that are clearly in the public record?" Toal asked. "What is the difference between an indictment and a 911 tape in determining pretrial publicity?"

The 35-year-old Snowden, who was armed with a handgun, was under attack by four men in a Dorchester Road video store in 2000 when responding police officers shot him.

Wednesday's arguments grew out of the newspaper's request for the 911 tapes of the shooting incident under the Freedom of Information Act following 9th Circuit Solicitor Ralph Hoisington's decision not to prosecute the officers involved based on information from the recordings.

The city, after consulting with Hoisington, however, declined to hand over the tapes, arguing that the recordings were evidence that shouldn't be released until the men accused of attacking Snowden went to trial.

A circuit court judge sided with the city.

A three-judge appellate panel upheld the previous ruling, prompting the newspaper to request a review by the Supreme Court. A ruling is not expected for some time.

John Kerr, attorney for The Post and Courier, told the justices that he feared this case could create a legal mechanism for law enforcement agencies to shield errors. "The public has a right to know when one of its citizens is killed," Kerr said. "If this case is upheld, I can foresee someone using this case to hide misconduct."

Deputy City Attorney Derk Van Raalte argued that the city's intention never was to withhold the tapes but only to delay them from entering the public record until there could be a fair trial for the men who chased Snowden. He also noted that the transcripts eventually were provided to the newspaper once the recordings became evidence in that trial.

Jay Bender, a media lawyer in Columbia, said the Supreme Court has been vigorous in upholding the public's right to information. Barring access to public records, he said, is a grave decision.

"The important aspect of this is how can you gauge the effectiveness or the performance of police if you are denied the opportunity to see what information they had at the time they responded to a call," Bender said. "Far too often, local governments withhold information to protect the reputation of the city or county."