Grand Forks Police decision to withhold investigation records upheld by Attorney General opinion
Grand Forks, North Dakota – In a detailed legal opinion addressing public records access and criminal investigations, the North Dakota Attorney General has determined that the Grand Forks Police Department acted within the law when it initially denied a request for certain records tied to an ongoing case.
The opinion came after Korrie Wenzel, Publisher of the Grand Forks Herald, requested a formal review to determine whether the department had improperly withheld records in violation of state open records law. The request focused on whether the department’s actions conflicted with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, which generally requires public records to be accessible unless an exception applies.
At the center of the issue was a request for documents and video related to the arrest of a state legislator on suspicion of driving under the influence. While some limited information was released early on, the department declined to provide the full police report and body camera footage at the time, citing legal restrictions tied to an active investigation.
Records Withheld During Active Case
According to the facts presented, a reporter initially requested a police report on May 10, 2024. The department responded by providing “[a] copy of the initial open report with limited release information” but withheld the complete report. Officials explained that “[a]t this time limited information is available for release as this report is still open within the court system.”
A second request was made on May 20, 2024, this time seeking body camera footage connected to the same incident. That request was denied entirely, with the department stating the materials were protected as active criminal investigative information under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7. The department considered the case active because the prosecution had not yet been completed.
The legal question that followed centered on whether a case remains “active” once an arrest has been made and the matter is moving through the court system. Wenzel argued that because the suspect had already been arrested and prosecution had begun, the case should no longer be treated as active.
Legal Analysis Supports Department Decision
The Attorney General’s office rejected that argument, relying on both prior opinions and rulings from the North Dakota Supreme Court. The analysis clarified that a criminal case is still considered active until the prosecution is fully completed, meaning until guilt or innocence has been determined.
The opinion referenced earlier interpretations that define prosecution as an ongoing legal process carried out before a court. As long as that process is underway, the investigation remains active for the purpose of protecting certain records from public release.
In this case, the request for records occurred while the prosecution was still pending. Because the case had not yet reached a final resolution, the materials in question were classified as active criminal investigative information and therefore exempt from disclosure at that time.
The situation changed on July 2, 2024, when the court entered judgment after the legislator pleaded guilty to an amended charge. With the case officially closed, the Grand Forks Herald renewed its request, and the police department then released the full police report and body camera footage.
The attorney general concluded that the department acted properly throughout the process, noting that the records were withheld only while the case remained active and were released once the legal proceedings were complete.
“The Grand Forks Police Department did not violate N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by denying the requested records because the records constituted active criminal investigative information under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7.”
The opinion, issued by Attorney General Drew H. Wrigley, reinforces the balance between the public’s right to access information and the need to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal cases. It also highlights how timing plays a critical role in determining when certain records can be released.
By following existing law and precedent, the department ensured that due process was preserved while still honoring the request once the case reached its conclusion.
