About one-fourth of local law enforcement agencies broke the
state’s Freedom of Information Act by refusing to provide crime
information, a statewide survey found.
That survey also found there is no consistency in how those
agencies handle requests for reports.
In Orangeburg County, for example, the Sheriff’s Department
turned down a request for an incident report. In Bamberg County,
authorities require residents to fill out a Freedom of Information
request and wait three weeks or more to see public documents.
In some police departments, you’ll get the report with no
problems. Some will charge $6 a page.
Reporters and other representatives of news organizations,
including The State, sought the reports as part of a recent audit by
The Associated Press, S.C. Press Association and newspapers around
the state. They approached police agencies as citizens, telling
clerks and law officers that they worked for news organizations only
if asked. It was an effort to see how authorities handle information
requests from people without press credentials.
State law requires law enforcement agencies to make available
crime report information to the public for 14 days — no questions
asked, said Jay Bender, a lawyer for the AP, and other S.C. media
outlets, including The State.
About one-fourth of the 65 police agencies visited refused to let
people review crime reports.
“The law is very clear. It must be provided,” state Attorney
General Henry McMaster said. His agency referees disputes on the
state’s Freedom of Information law and issues opinions on FOI
issues.
The good news is about three-fourths complied with requests, said
Jeff Moore, executive director of the S.C. Sheriff’s Association.
“The ones that didn’t, I don’t know why they didn’t,” he said.
In some cases, people might be confused about what has to be
disclosed, he said.
The review also shows the public is treated differently from
reporters, particularly when it comes to obtaining and paying for
copies of records.
Incident reports and other public documents must be made
available for little more than the cost of making a copy — 25 cents
or less a page in most public libraries or private copy
businesses.
The audit, however, showed some police departments charge as much
as $6 for a one- or two-page incident report. “These costs you have
here on the survey are high — way too high,” McMaster said.
“A lot of people just don’t have five or six dollars to put down
for a copy of a document from their government,” McMaster said. “The
cost ought to be free or either rock-bottom low.”
Moore said something should be done to lower excessive copying
costs. “The FOI statute is pretty clear. It says the actual cost of
creating the document,” Moore said.
Among the 32 law enforcement agencies that charged for copies
during the audit, the average cost was about $2.87.
At the Edgefield County Sheriff’s Department, a crime incident
report cost 25 cents. In neighboring Aiken County, the same document
was $6. The Edgefield Police Department was one of 18 agencies
providing reports for free.
Apart from the cost of a sheet of paper running through a copy
machine, some agencies build labor and research costs into
retrieving and copying documents that the law already says must be
available for review. Some add the cost of redacting information
they don’t want to disclose — something the law says can’t be done,
Bender said.
None of that makes sense since tax dollars already pay for the
workers, McMaster said.
Instead, Bender said, some law enforcement and other agencies
make money from the copies.
McMaster said if police or other agencies charge for copies, it
should be less than what a copy shop would charge because those
businesses make a profit. And the state already offers some guidance
on minimal costs with a statewide contract that tells agencies that
copying machines can cost no more than 8 cents a page to
operate.
When police agencies found out the person seeking the records
worked for a newspaper, they typically waived the costs that
residents would be required to pay, the audit showed.
There’s nothing in the law allowing that kind of distinction,
McMaster said. “It doesn’t make any difference who they are,”
everyone should receive copies at the lowest cost, he said.
The journalists faced plenty of questions. Clerks and law
officers wanted to know their names and why they were requesting the
information.
In some cases, they were told to fill out Freedom of Information
requests, which can take three weeks or more to yield documents.
That “is a bit bizarre,” Moore said.
A visitor to the Darlington County Sheriff’s Office was told he
could view an incident report if he had specific information from
the report. When the visitor reminded records clerk Janice Woodham
that all records are supposed to be available to the public, Woodham
held firm.
“The Freedom of Information Act provides you can view the reports
if you know the name, date or specific time of the incident,” she
said.
The law has no such requirement.
At the St. Matthews Police Department, an officer asked an
Orangeburg Times and Democrat editor who he was after he requested a
police report. The editor said he worked for the newspaper but left
empty-handed anyway. When he returned to his office, he learned that
someone from the department had called to verify his identity.
At the Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office, a sign tells people to
fill out a “request for incident report form” that asks for personal
information and why he or she wants a copy of the report. When a
Greenwood Index-Journal reporter visited the office, he was asked
whether he was a reporter. He said he was and was granted immediate
access to crime reports.
The next day, a colleague visited the same office and was told
she had to be the victim of a crime to get a copy of an incident
report.
“The identity of the person asking for the document should have
no bearing at all with the speed with which he or she gets
documents,” McMaster said.
In some cases, police may want to make sure that the person
requesting crime information isn’t related to a suspect, Moore said.
“Law enforcement, just by its very nature, is a very suspicious
business,” he said. “There is a reluctance to just blindly hand over
something.”
But the law doesn’t require people to give their names, and
demanding them can be intimidating.
Besides, police don’t need names to protect victims, Bender said.
They can eliminate information from reports that may identify
victims who may be harmed by disclosure, he said.
Some agencies abuse that authority.
A Greenville Police Department clerk told a visitor she would
black out “all the important information” on a report about a recent
police chase.
The report had 21 items redacted, including the name of a suspect
police sought, despite earlier giving the full report to a reporter
from The Greenville
News.
