A picture still wrongly hidden

The following is an editorial from the News & Record of Greensboro.

A few days after his 21-year-old son was shot and killed by an Archdale police officer on Interstate 85 in Randolph County, Pharr Smith expressed understandable frustration.

"We do continue to have faith in the system," he wrote in an e-mail obtained by WRAL-TV of Raleigh. "We just wish some of the balancing facts could be released to give people a clearer picture of how all this unfolded."

One clear picture could be provided by police video showing what happened after officers stopped Courtland Benjamin Smith, a UNC-Chapel Hill student, on the morning of Aug. 23.

Unfortunately, Judge Vance Bradford Long ruled Tuesday that the video should not be released while a criminal investigation is under way.

Long's order, issued in Randolph County Superior Court, carried an ominous tone for the Archdale officers involved in the tragic incident.

"Release of the video will jeopardize the right of potential defendants to a fair trial and the right of the State to prosecute potential defendants and will undermine an ongoing investigation," the judge wrote.

The statement hints that the video, which he reviewed, will cast doubt on claims of justification for the shooting. Audio tapes recorded by Guilford County 911 reveal that Smith had been drinking, was driving much too fast, indicated he was trying to kill himself and said he had a gun.

Smith's family has said he was not armed when he was shot four times. Archdale police have not said whether Smith had a gun.

Long's decision is troubling for another reason: The judge said the police video is not a public record because video isn't specifically named in the state's public records law, which lists "all documents ... photographs, films, sound recordings ... or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics."

Surely, a video should be considered "documentary material."

The judge still could have agreed to release the video, as requested by news organizations, but concluded the public's right to know was less important than other concerns. However, he didn't explain how it might hinder an investigation to let the public see this video. Does it impair a football referee's ability to make a call if TV viewers see the same replay he's looking at?

Long's order that the video should be released once the probe is complete or the material is offered as evidence in court is inadequate. Doubts grow as time passes. This is a matter of public confidence in a law enforcement agency whose officers patrol a heavily traveled highway. The video isn't only an investigative tool. It's a means of accountability by which the public can see how officers carry out their duties.

In this case, a young man's life was taken, a terrible action that's acceptable only in extreme situations.

Delaying the release of information that might shed light on those circumstances does not reassure the public. At this point, the family's frustration can be widely shared.