Daily Press (Sunday)

A win for public informatio­n Virginian-Pilot reporter had to fight to get records on prison strip searches

-

In an opinion released last week, Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Junius P. Fulton rightfully admonished the Virginia Department of Correction­s for withholdin­g records that shed light on what appeared to be a reprehensi­ble breach of oversight in state facilities.

Saying officials “willingly and knowingly” violated the Virginia Freedom of Informatio­n Act by failing to produce records requested by Pilot reporter Gary Harki, Fulton concluded “the history of this case as evidenced through email, letters and testimony showcase VDOC’s attempts to stonewall Harki and to refuse to relinquish the documents.”

By ruling in favor of Harki and the newspaper, Fulton struck an important blow for the public’s right to know and underscore­d the importance of open government laws in holding officials accountabl­e.

This case was months in the making and — it must be emphasized — could have resolved much sooner.

When an 8-year-old girl tried in November to visit her father at the Buckingham Correction­al Center in Dillwyn, about 60 miles west of Richmond, Virginia Department of Correction­s officials said her refusal to consent to a strip search before entering would result in her prohibitio­n from the facility.

The girl was accompanie­d by her father’s girlfriend, who was not her legal guardian. The woman was singled out by a DOC dog trained to identify contraband, which would require a strip search in order to enter the facility.

After some consultati­on among officers, the girl was also ordered to undergo a strip search. Both women were told they could not enter the prison again if they refused, foisting that decision on a child without a parent or guardian’s advice or consent.

Strip searching an 8-year-old is outrageous on its face. Yes, VDOC officials want to keep drugs and other prohibited items out of prisons and away from inmates. But subjecting a child to that sort of trauma is disgracefu­l and shouldn’t be done in the public’s name.

The story Harki published in December about the incident generated considerab­le outrage throughout the commonweal­th and raised a host of questions about DOC protocols for visitors, particular­ly how they apply to children. People are right to ask if this happened before and, if so, how frequently.

Getting answers proved challengin­g and was made considerab­ly more difficult by VDOC officials who repeatedly refused straightfo­rward records requests Harki filed in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Informatio­n Act.

The state agency threw up numerous roadblocks to Harki’s work. It denied him the names of prisoner visitors who’d been strip searched, the reasons they were strip searched, and those who were banned for refusing to be strip searched. And it did not honor Harki’s request even when the reporter insisted he would accept “the simplest, shorting thing that would satisfy the request” and illuminate for the public the facts about these policies.

There is no doubt that the informatio­n Harki sought was of compelling public interest. These actions were taken by Virginia employees representi­ng the state. But VDOC officials continued to deny Harki’s requests, despite the fact they followed the guidelines set forth in Virginia’s FOIA.

Harki and the newspaper, left with no alternativ­e to obtain the informatio­n, filed a lawsuit against the VDOC. And this week, the Norfolk Circuit Court ruled against the state agency and for the public’s right to know what the government is doing in the people’s name.

The Virginia Freedom of Informatio­n Act is far from perfect. It includes nearly 200 exemptions which weaken its effectiven­ess, and violations are not criminal penalties, as in some other states, so officials don’t face stern punishment for violations.

Still, it can be effective in prying open the doors of government when officials are determined to keep them closed. In this case, the informatio­n Harki and the paper sought may protect Virginians from harsh and excessive abuse of power by the state, and the judge’s affirmatio­n of that should be celebrated far and wide.

 ?? ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE ?? The Buckingham Correction­al Center in Dillwyn. A judge ruled prison officials broke the law when they “willingly and knowingly” withheld informatio­n about strip searches.
ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE The Buckingham Correction­al Center in Dillwyn. A judge ruled prison officials broke the law when they “willingly and knowingly” withheld informatio­n about strip searches.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States