Supreme Court

State of Tennessee
CHIEF JUSTICE

SHARON G. LEE

JUSTICES

CORNELIA A. CLARK
GARY R. WADE
JEFFREY S. BIVINS
HOLLY KIRBY

401 SEVENTH AVENUE NORTH

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
37219

Supreme Court Rules that Nashville Police not Required to Release Records in Vanderbilt Rape Case
Nashville, Tenn. The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the Metro Nashville Police Department
is not required by the Tennessee Public Records Act to release investigation records requested by a group
of media organizations in a rape case involving four former Vanderbilt University football players.
In June 2013, Metro Police investigated an alleged rape of a Vanderbilt University student in a college
dormitory. The investigation led to the indictment of four Vanderbilt football players for multiple counts
of rape and sexual battery, and one with unlawful photography and tampering with evidence. After all
four pleaded not guilty, the Davidson County Criminal Court issued an agreed protective order,
providing that all photographs and videos provided to the defendants by the State could be viewed only
by the defendants attorneys.
On October 17, 2013, a reporter for The Tennessean, a Nashville newspaper, made a public records request
to Metro Police, seeking to inspect any records regarding the alleged rape involving the four Vanderbilt
football players, including any text messages received or sent and any videos provided and/or prepared
by any third-party sources. The Public Records Act generally provides for the right of the public to
inspect government records. Metro Police denied the request because the requested records were part of
an open criminal investigation and pending prosecution and were, therefore, exempt from disclosure
under the Public Records Act. Meanwhile, several other media organizations joined The Tennessean in
requesting the records.
On February 5, 2014, The Tennessean and other media organizations filed suit in Davidson County
Chancery Court seeking access to the requested records under the Public Records Act. Along with Metro
Police, the State and the victim opposed release of the records.

The State and Metro Police contended that all the requested records were exempt from disclosure under
Rule 16(a)(2) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which they claimed protects all investigation records
from disclosure while criminal proceedings are still pending. They further argued that many of the
records were protected against disclosure by the criminal courts protective order and that disclosure of
the records could lead to an unfair trial. The victim further asserted that release of the records would
violate her rights as a victim, which are protected by the Victims Bill of Rights and the Tennessee
Constitution. The media organizations argued, on the other hand, that Rule 16(a)(2) does not protect all
records from disclosure during a pending criminal proceeding, and particularly not those that were
prepared by and/or provided to police by third parties.
The Chancery Court, after privately inspecting the requested records, ruled that some of the records were
subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The Court of Appeals reversed the Chancery Courts
ruling, finding that all of the sought-after records were exempt from disclosure under Rule 16(a)(2), as
they were all relevant to a pending or contemplated criminal action. The media organizations appealed to
the Tennessee Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court ruled that, under the facts of this case, the requested records were exempt from
disclosure under Rule 16. The Court held that while the Public Records Act generally provides for access
to public records, there are numerous statutory exceptions that protect certain records from
disclosure. One of these exceptions is when state law provides for non-disclosure. The Court noted that
Rule 16, which is a rule of discovery between the State and defendants in criminal cases, is a state law
exception to disclosure under the Public Records Act. This rule, the Court held, provides for the release of
the requested records only to the State and the defendants while the criminal cases and any collateral
challenges to the criminal convictions are pending.
The Court explained that if Rule 16 did not function as an exception to disclosure in this case, a defendant
would have no reason to seek discovery from the State, but would instead simply file a public records
request and obtain the entire police investigative file, which could include more information than the
defendant could otherwise obtain under Rule 16. Similarly, if the media could make a public records
request and obtain the investigative files, then the defendants and potential jurors could learn about the
States case simply by reading a newspaper or watching a television news broadcast. Thus, the Court
held that while the media plays an important and necessary role in holding government officials
accountable, the medias role must yield to the need to protect the rights of the defendants and the
integrity of the criminal justice system during the pendency of the criminal cases and any collateral
challenges to the criminal convictions.
The Courts ruling protects the victims privacy while the criminal case and any collateral proceedings are
pending. After that time, state law provides when a defendant pleads guilty or is convicted and
sentenced, the victims identifying information and any photographs or video images of the victim are
confidential and are not to be disclosed.
Dissenting from the majority, Justice Gary R. Wade agreed with the trial court that Rule 16(a)(2) exempts
from public disclosure only those records that contain witness statements or qualify as state work
product. In addition, Justice Wade concluded that the victim was entitled to a ruling on her claim that the
public disclosure of records relating to the rape incident would violate her constitutional right to be free
from intimidation, harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice system. Justice Wades dissent
expressed concern that the victim will be forced to re-litigate her claim at a later time because Rule
16(a)(2) will cease to exempt the documents from disclosure when the criminal prosecutions come to an
end.
Justice Holly Kirby agreed with the majority and filed a separate concurring opinion responding to the
dissent. Justice Kirby said that the dissent would throw open police files on pending investigations and
criminal prosecutions, not only to responsible media sources, but also to suspected perpetrators under

investigation and their allies, gang members, voyeurs, pornographers, anyone. A ruling in line with the
dissent, she said, could have catastrophic consequences for all involved in the criminal justice system.
To read the Courts opinion in The Tennessean, et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County, et al., authored by Chief Justice Lee, Justice Kirbys separate concurring opinion, and Justice
Wades dissenting opinion, visit the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.