,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY '1/ :' D}t C ~:: . C ::

ST ATE OF GEORGIA
Al St. Lawrence, Sheriff of Chatham
County, Georgia, and Meg Heap, District
Attorney,
Plaintiffs,
v.

WSA V, Inc., Adenike Hannah

Ajibade and Solomon Aludamisi Ajibade,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. CV15-0441-KA

ORDER
This action for declaratory judgment was filed by the sheriff and district attorney of
Chatham County. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court protecting them from the obligation
to release certain records sought by defendant WSA V arising from the death of an inmate at the
. Chatham County Detention Center. Subsequent to the filing of this action the surviving family of
the inmate, Mathew Ajibade, sought to intervene as defendants. The intervention was without
objection and was granted.
Following the death of Mr. Ajibade, the sheriffs office launched an internal investigation
into the circumstances and also called in the GBI. As a result of the sheriffs investigation, a
number of deputies and employees were either fired, resigned or retired. The sheriff turned over
his internal investigation to the GBI, and the GBI ultimately delivered its report and the
accompanying evidence to the district attorney. Subsequently, the grand jury returned
indictments against two deputies and a health care employee who worked at the jail.
The Open Records request filed by WSA V seeks the records from the sheriffs internal
affairs investigation of the incident. The sheriff and district attorney oppose release of this
material, relying on the pending prosecution exemption contained in OCGA 50-18-72 (a)( 4).
WSAV, for its part, contends that the internal affairs investigation has concluded, and therefore

pursuant to 50-18-72 (a)(8) should be released. As well, WSAV argues that the pending
prosecution exemption does not apply to the sheriff because the sheriffs office is "an agency that
is the subject of the pending investigation or prosecution." OCGA 50-18-72 (a)(4).1
Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the controlling principles of law, the
court concludes that these records are not subject to release as requested . Although the court
acknowledges the points made by WSAV, the fact remains that an active prosecution of
individuals involved in the unfortunate death ofMr. Ajibade is pending. The court finds it
impossible to parse out the sheriffs internal investigation from the prosecution, such that one
portion of the record should be released while the remainder is not. It is also difficult to reconcile
why the investigation by the sheriff should be released, while the same information in the hands
of the DA is protected by the exception in subsection (a)(4). As noted in earlier decisions,
subsection (a)(4) "broadly exempts from disclosure the entirety of such records to the extent they
are part of a 'pending investigation or prosecution' ...." Unified Government ofAthens-Clarke

County v. Athens Newspaper, LLC, 284 Ga. 192 (2008), citing Atlanta Journal & Constitution v.
City ofBrunswick, 265 Ga. 413, 414 (1995). Ifthe same records being used by the district
attorney to prosecute the pending indictments can simply be obtained from the sheriff, the
legitimate purpose of the exception would be frustrated, i.e., the protection of a pending
prosecution.
The court is aware that there is wide spread public interest in this case. The court also
recognizes the obligation of WSAV and the other news organizations to report on matters of
public interest, as well as the public's right of access to records of the institutions of government.

In the present case, however, the question is not whether the information will be disclosed, but
when. The court notes that at least one of the indicted defendants has filed a demand for speedy
trial which will accelerate the trial process. The public's right to know will be satisfied during the
trial, which will be sooner rather than later. Any release of the information sought at this juncture

lUnder this subsection, if the agency is the subject of the investigation, then the pending
investigation or prosecution exemption does not apply. Here, the sheriffs office itself was not
being investigated, rather individuals who worked for the sheriff were under investigation for
their role in the death.
2

would fly in the face of the purpose of the legislatively enacted exemption.
The court also notes that release of this material, especially the video from jail
surveillance cameras would likely be broadcast and disseminated widely in this jurisdiction, as
well as in other parts of the state. The court expects that this widespread release would have a
significant impact on jury selection, making it difficult to obtain a fair and impartial jury for the
upcoming trial.
Accordingly, the court declares that plaintiffs are not required to disclose the material
sought by defendants pursuant to the Open Records act. 2

SO ORDERED this

J..Q. day of July, 2015.

Michael L. Karpf, Chief Judg Superior Court
Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia

cc:

Sarah R. Craig, Esq.

David E. Hudson, Esq.
R. Jonathan Hart, Esq.

Jennifer R. Burns, Esq.

William R. Claiborne, Esq.

Bates Lovett, Esq.

Patrick T. O'Connor, Esq.

2In light of the foregoing, the court finds it unnecessary to address the claims of the
intervening defendants.