ILNews

Confidentiality issues raised

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although a new law enacted this year addresses the release of audio recordings of calls made to the Department of Child Services to report abuse, the law doesn’t discuss the redaction of identifying information of these calls. There is concern in the DCS that if callers’ identities are released to the media, people will be hesitant to report abuse.

The law change came about during a battle between the DCS and the South Bend Tribune in which the newspaper sought records – including the audio recordings made to the agency’s centralized call center – following the death of a St. Joseph County boy. The audio was released by a judge without redaction.
 

15col-confidentiality_payne.jpg DCS Director James Payne stands in the child abuse hotline call center, which was centralized in Indianapolis in 2011. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

DCS director James Payne, a former juvenile judge in Marion County, worries that the ruling opens the door for other judges to order similar disclosures. As a result, people might stop reporting possible child abuse situations for fear that their identities will be revealed.

“We’re very concerned about the chilling effect disclosure of these calls might have, whether it’s a person’s name or the information given that could identify who called,” Payne said. “Our interest was always about protecting callers. We don’t know where this will go, but the more it’s talked about, the more potential there is for a caller to think this information might get out.”

The issue surfaced publicly this year, the first time a recorded child abuse hotline call was released to the media and a court challenge fought that disclosure. This case from St. Joseph County pits child safety against the First Amendment right of the media to shine a light on what this centralized call center and state agency are doing to protect children. The decision to move the call center to one location in Indianapolis instead of having locations around the state is questioned by child welfare advocates, juvenile judges, and state lawmakers who wonder whether it would be better to have local DCS officials, case workers or police handle the calls.

As a part of the increased scrutiny on this centralized hotline system, more attention has been on how the DCS responds to calls that come into the hotline and makes determinations about whether any further action is required.

That’s where the St. Joseph County case comes in.

An anonymous caller in May 2011 spent 20 minutes detailing what appeared to be horrific abuse to 10 children at a South Bend residence – six months before police found 10-year-old Tramelle Sturgis tortured and beaten to death in that home. After the call was released to the media, it became clear that the caller urged workers to visit the home to witness the abuse after describing another child’s injuries that left him limping and bleeding in his abdomen.

Two weeks after Tramelle Sturgis was killed in November, the South Bend Tribune filed a public records request with the DCS requesting access to all department reports related to the boy and his family.

Although DCS records are generally confidential, Indiana Code 31-33-18 allows for documents to be released in cases where a fatality or near-fatality has occurred. A court order can be obtained to have the caller’s identifying information redacted in paper record, but the state statute didn’t address the actual audio recordings because lawmakers hadn’t updated the law since the decision to start recording those calls was made four years ago. The DCS turned over documents showing its involvement with the family, but the agency didn’t provide recordings of phone calls from the child abuse hotline as the newspaper requested. The South Bend Tribune then filed another records request, asking for audio files and transcripts of calls made to the hotline about the Sturgis family.

Representing the South Bend Tribune, South Bend attorney Jerry Lutkus with Barnes & Thornburg argued that state law requires the records be censored by a judge to remove identifying information, but that the recordings and transcripts themselves are releasable.

“Though DCS contends the disclosure of public records could endanger children or cause potential abuse reporters to reconsider, it is just as plausible that the disclosure of such records will raise community awareness of the blight of child abuse and engender public action to end it,” Lutkus wrote in a court filing.

Lutkus said the newspaper never intended to publish the identifying information, but wanted access to the recordings and transcript in order to report on the case and how the DCS had responded to allegations.

But the department denied the request for recordings, arguing they were confidential and couldn’t be released. Around this time, Senate Bill 286 was crafted to revise state law about these recorded phone calls to the hotline. The law that takes effect July 1 adds a fifth provision to IC 31-33-18 that specifically exempts from public disclosure and makes confidential any “audio recording of a telephone call to the child abuse hotline.” The new law says that a court order will be the only way to obtain disclosure in a fatality or any type of child abuse allegation. Statutes dealing with redaction weren’t amended to address audio recordings.

St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth on March 6 ordered the release of the recorded child abuse hotline calls related to Tramelle Sturgis and his family. The one-page order denies a motion to seal the “confidential information” that included four audio recordings and transcripts.

That caught the department off guard, because they were fully expecting Nemeth to redact the identifying information before turning it over. The statute specifically talks about the judges evaluating the biometrics of a call to determine what might be confidential, Payne said.

Within days, the DCS appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals to block the disclosure and a story the newspaper planned. Although the story was briefly posted on March 9, the COA blocked the story and the newspaper removed the content from its website. That brought on a concern about First Amendment rights and prior restraint.

The appellate court set an emergency hearing for March 12, but after a new review by attorneys on both sides, an agreement was reached and the appellate court cancelled the hearing. The Office of the Indiana Attorney General took over the case and immediately filed a motion for dismissal, determining the agency’s effort to prevent publication was inconsistent with the First Amendment and the state must rely on journalistic ethics in these situations.

“Prior restraint of the news media publishing public records is inconsistent with the First Amendment,” Attorney General Greg Zoeller said. “As the lawyer for state government, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General now asserts the legal position of the state that in the interest of openness and transparency, the publication of public records should not be halted.”

Indianapolis attorney Paul Jefferson, with Barnes & Thornburg, said the outcome of this situation shows the legal system worked when it was supposed to.

“My takeaway is that when lawyers and judges work through things like the significant interests of child safety and the First Amendment, the system works,” Jefferson said.

But despite the law changes addressing these audio recordings and that the identity was protected in this case, Payne still fears that others might interpret the law as Nemeth did and identifying information could be released to the public.

For one thing, the redaction procedures still don’t specifically mention the hotline’s audio recordings. As its stands now, one trial judge has interpreted Indiana law to require disclosure of these recorded calls without any redaction and the state’s appellate courts haven’t ruled on the issue.

“If someone thinks a judge is going to turn over their name and information provided, then that might prevent them from calling in the first place,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT