Top NC court rejects case tied to Charlotte reporter’s records request
The North Carolina Supreme Court will not consider a Charlotte television reporter’s pursuit of records linked to a fatal 2023 shooting involving private security guards. The high court denied multiple petitions Friday in cases Carolina Journal has been tracking.
Other cases involved the state Department of Transportation’s liability for two deaths on a snow-covered interstate in 2014 and a dispute involving the state Department of Justice and a DOT contractor who used blue lights while conducting traffic control work on Interstate 77 in 2016.
Friday marked the first scheduled day in 2026 for release of state Supreme Court opinions. The court issued no decisions. Its next scheduled opinion release day is March 20.
Ochsner request
The high court granted Allied University Security Services’ request to reject a petition from Charlotte TV news reporter Nick Ochsner. He had sought names and addresses of two security guards involved in a fatal 2023 shooting.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling in March 2025 rejecting Ochsner’s request. He filed a petition with the state’s highest court two weeks later.
“This case is about a news reporter’s efforts to receive more than he is allowed under public records law,” wrote lawyers representing the private security company in an April 2025 court filing. “In the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and now here, Petitioner seeks to use the North Carolina Public Records Act to get the names and addresses of two security guards employed by Allied Universal who were involved in an unfortunate shooting.”
“The problem, however, is that, under the Act, criminal investigation records like those at issue here are confidential,” Allied Universal’s lawyers wrote. “Although this rule has some exceptions, none requires the disclosure of the guards’ identities on these facts. And to the extent Petitioner sought any other information arising from the incident, Petitioner has received all the records to which he is entitled.”
“Disappointed that two courts have denied him the information he wants, Petitioner seeks this Court’s discretionary review. To justify this Court’s involvement, he argues that allowing the Court of Appeals’ decision to stand will place in jeopardy the public’s right to access public records from private law enforcement agencies like Allied Universal,” the court filing continued.
“Petitioner exaggerates the importance of his case. This is a narrow dispute about whether this particular Petitioner, in these specific circumstances, got all he is entitled to get under the law. His dispute thus lacks the broad public or legal impact needed for this Court to step in,” the private law enforcement group’s lawyers argued.
“Indeed, the Court of Appeals’ decision is unpublished, giving it no impact on future cases or the rights of anyone but the parties. Petitioner also fails to identify any conflict between the decision below and this Court’s precedents. His issue is not with the Court of Appeals’ understanding of the relevant law; it is with how the Court of Appeals applied that law to his specific facts. That is no conflict,” the court filing added.
Ochsner wanted courts to force Allied Universal to release names and addresses of two security guards involved in the shooting of a trespasser at the “former EpiCentre site” in Charlotte in September 2023.
The Appeals Court decision “wrongly holds that a private law enforcement company commissioned by the Attorney General pursuant to the Company Police Act … has no public disclosure obligations in the wake of a deadly shooting,” wrote Ochsner’s lawyer, Lauren Russell, in March 2025.
“By affirming the trial court’s ruling shielding Allied Universal Security (AUS) from producing any public records – or even supplying potentially responsive records for in camera review – the majority’s decision creates a double standard in which private law enforcement companies, who wield the same power as state and municipal police, do not share the same obligations of public transparency,” Russell wrote.
Two AUS guards were called in September 2023 to a report of a trespasser urinating outside a commercial building. The trespasser fired a gun at the security guards while attempting to flee, according to the Appeals Court opinion in the case.
After the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department arrived to investigate the shooting, Ochsner “requested from both AUS and CMPD the names and addresses of the AUS security guards involved in the shooting. CMPD provided some information to Petitioner but ultimately declined the request to reveal the identities of the AUS officers. AUS did not disclose any information to Petitioner,” the majority opinion explained.
“On appeal, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in determining that AUS was not required to produce any records or communications pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132.1-4(c),” wrote Appeals Court Chief Judge Chris Dillon in an unpublished opinion. Unpublished opinions have limited value as precedents for future cases.
“We conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to AUS employee identities,” Dillon wrote. “We note that no one was arrested, charged, or indicted for the shooting. No one was placed under arrest for the shooting. There was no complaining witness concerning the shooting.”
Judge John Tyson joined Dillon’s opinion. Both are Republicans. Judge Toby Hampson, a Democrat, dissented.
“Certainly, AUS has a duty to provide public records related to its officers’ initial response to the report of public urination,” Hampson wrote. “The majority, however, reasons that as AUS was not the investigative authority with respect to the shooting, AUS has no duty whatsoever to comply with public records requests.”
“In my view, this narrow analysis parsing out a developing law enforcement investigation into separate incidents — and thus carving out AUS from any responsibility to provide public records or to present potentially applicable records for in camera judicial review — is erroneous,” the dissent added.
“At a minimum, the trial court’s order should be vacated and this matter remanded to compel AUS to at least produce pertinent records for review related to its investigation and response to the reported event … on the night in question,” Hampson wrote. “This includes — rather than excludes — the shooting. The shooting was part of the AUS investigation into the alleged public urination/trespassing complaint.”
DOT liability
The North Carolina Supreme Court also declined to address a case dealing with whether state law protects the Department of Transportation from a lawsuit over two deaths on a snow-covered interstate in 2014.
A unanimous North Carolina Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of the DOT in September 2025. That decision reversed a 2024 ruling from the state Industrial Commission.
A company named CR England argued that DOT should bear some legal responsibility for the accident that killed Nathaniel Williams and Larry Kepley. Appellate judges ruled that the state Emergency Management Act offered the department immunity against CR England’s suit.
“This case asks whether an agency can claim emergency-management immunity for negligence committed long before any emergency existed,” the company’s lawyers wrote in a state Supreme Court petition. “The Court of Appeals said yes. It held that the EMA grants perpetual protection to every act of ‘planning’ or ‘training’ that might someday affect a response to a storm or other crisis.”
“That ruling raises an issue of statewide importance reaching far beyond one tragic sequence of accidents on a snow-covered highway,” the petition continued. “The result reached below cannot be reconciled with the long-recognized legislative intent for waiving sovereign immunity through the North Carolina Tort Claims Act (‘TCA’) and the limited immunity exception recognized in the EMA.”
“The TCA was enacted to ensure that the State, when acting in a proprietary or operational capacity, is held to the same standard of ordinary care and accountability as a private actor,” CR England’s lawyers argued. “It represents a deliberate policy decision to waive sovereign immunity for negligent governmental conduct that injures the public. The EMA, by contrast, was designed to protect State agency decisions and actions made in good faith in the midst of a disaster response.”
“By extending emergency-management immunity to routine, preseason training activities conducted months before any declared emergency, the Court of Appeals converted the EMA’s narrow, crisis-driven protection into a general exemption from ordinary responsibility,” the petition added. “That interpretation expands the EMA beyond its text, ignores its statutory definition of ‘emergency,’ and undercuts the TCA’s express waiver of immunity for preventable harm in the State’s daily operations.”
“The consequences reach far beyond this case,” the company’s lawyers argued. “Under the decision below, agencies could invoke ‘emergency management’ to avoid liability for administrative failures that occur long before any crisis exists — failures that, as here, have tragic consequences when emergencies inevitably arise. The result is not greater readiness, but diminished accountability and public trust.”
“This Court’s review is warranted to restore the meaning of the statutes the General Assembly enacted and to ensure that the State’s duty of care to its citizens remains both real and enforceable,” the petition continued.
Williams and Kepley died in February 2014 when a driver struck them on Interstate 40 near the Wake County-Johnston County line.
The state was under a declared state of emergency because of a winter storm, according to the Appeals Court’s opinion. Both lanes of the interstate were cleared of snow and ice on one side of the county line. One lane remained covered with snow and ice on the other side.
Problems started when a driver operating a Freightliner bobtail tractor for CR England lost traction on I-40 when crossing from Wake into Johnston County. “The tractor spun and landed perpendicular to the road,” wrote Judge John Arrowood.
Williams also “lost control of his vehicle,” while Kepley “saw the tractor and pulled over to provide assistance,” Arrowood wrote. “Both Mr. Williams and Mr. Kepley were standing outside near the scene of the accident when they were struck and killed by another driver.”
The two men’s estates filed wrongful death lawsuits against CR England in 2015. The company agreed to settlements totaling $1.65 million.
CR England filed a claim with the Industrial Commission to seek a contribution from the DOT.
“Plaintiff alleged that ‘various named and unnamed employees of [NCDOT]’ were negligent in the design and execution of lane adjustments on I-40W, by failing to warn approaching traffic of the dangerous conditions, and in the training, supervision, and execution of snow removal,” Arrowood explained. “Plaintiff claimed that NCDOT’s negligence contributed to the traffic accident on 13 February and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to recovery of contribution for the settlements with Mr. Williams’ and Mr. Kepley’s estates.”
The Industrial Commission ruled against the DOT in July 2024.
The commission “found that NCDOT was negligent in ‘fail[ing] to exercise reasonable care to implement reasonable training and dry run protocols for snowplow drivers necessary for adequate maintenance of the roadways during a winter storm event.’ Lastly, because the negligent training occurred prior to the declared state of emergency on 11 February, the Full Commission determined that Emergency Management Act (‘EMA’) immunity did not apply,” the Appeals Court opinion noted.
“To support its finding of negligence, the Full Commission noted that while NCDOT’s Safe Operating Procedures required operators inspecting snowplow routes to ‘note or mark’ hazards, it did not require them to make documentation of or otherwise memorialize those hazards,” Arrowood wrote. “The Full Commission found this procedure unreasonable as the snowplow routes are long, hard to visualize during a storm, and may not be cleared by the same operator who originally inspected the route, increasing the possibility that hazards will be overlooked or forgotten.”
Appellate judges disagreed.
“The EMA operates in conjunction with sovereign immunity and the Tort Claims Act (‘TCA’),” Arrowood explained. “Generally, the doctrine of sovereign immunity grants the State immunity from suit absent a waiver. The TCA provides such a waiver of immunity for negligence claims against the State and any of its departments. However, the EMA effectively retracts the TCA’s waiver and reinstates immunity from negligence claims against the State where the State is engaged in emergency management.”
Arrowood pointed to the Appeals Court’s 2024 ruling granting government immunity when a school bus driver crashed into another vehicle while delivering food to students during the COVID-19 pandemic. “The Court reasoned that because the bus was being used for an emergency management purpose — minimizing the adverse effects of the COVID-19 emergency ‘by providing food to students who might otherwise go hungry’ — at the time of the accident, EMA immunity applied.”
Immunity extends to preparations that take place before an emergency, Arrowood wrote.
“The plain language of the EMA contemplates pre-emergency preparations and provides immunity,” he wrote. “N.C.G.S. § 166A-19.3(8) states that emergency management is a ‘never-ending preparedness cycle’ which includes ‘planning.’ The broad definition of emergency management requires that EMA immunity encompass all stages of preparing for emergencies, including training personnel to respond to emergencies.”
“Limiting EMA immunity only to actions made during an active or imminent emergency would impose an end to the cycle of emergency management, contrary to the statute,” Arrowood added. “Thus, whether EMA immunity applies is not simply a question of timing but rather of relation to emergency ‘planning, prevention, mitigation, warning, movement, shelter, emergency assistance, and recovery.’”
“The negligence alleged in this case occurred in preparation of an emergency and falls under the EMA,” the Appeals Court concluded. “NCDOT’s training and adoption of snowplow operating procedures is done in preparation for winter weather events. Indeed, the act of clearing roads of snow and ice is meant to ‘minimize the adverse effects’ of a winter storm by making the roads safer to use.”
“Accordingly, the training of snowplow operators is ‘an important function of safety’ and a crucial step in planning for emergencies,” Arrowood explained. “As such, though these preparations took place before the occurrence of winter storm Pax, they are part of the emergency preparedness cycle and protected by EMA immunity.”
Judges Allegra Collins and Christopher Freeman joined Arrowood’s opinion.
DOJ dispute
The state Supreme Court rejected Friday a case that pitted the North Carolina Department of Justice against a DOT contractor.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals had issued a February 2025 decision that tossed out a trial judge’s ruling favoring a private police contractor in its dispute with DOJ. The legal fight focused on the contractor’s use of blue lights while its vehicles guided traffic during Interstate 77 construction work.
In 2016, contractor Sugar Creek Construction hired the private firm Southeastern Company Police to help with policing services and traffic control for a 26-mile I-77 construction project in the Charlotte area.
In March 2017, the operations manager of a Charlotte-based private security agency contacted Randy Munn, DOJ’s company police administrator. In an email, the security agency employee complained that two Southeastern vehicles were using flashing blue and red lights on the sides of travel lanes at various points in the construction project.
Southeastern was the plaintiff in the Appeals Court case. The DOJ and Munn were defendants.
“Defendant Munn informed both Plaintiff and SCC that Plaintiff’s officers were limited to working inside of any barricaded work zones of the construction area and that it would violate the Act for a company police agency to utilize blue lights to block the travel lanes on a state-maintained highway,” Judge Valerie Zachary wrote for a unanimous three-judge Appeals Court panel. “Defendant Munn also warned that the potential punishment for such a violation could include an immediate revocation of Plaintiff’s certification as a company police agency under the [Company Police] Act.”
Southeastern removed its officers from the site, but the dispute led to “multiple lawsuits in state and federal courts,” Zachary wrote. In the current case, Southeastern “claimed that Defendant Munn deprived Plaintiff of rights and property; exceeded the scope of his authority; acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and erroneously; and failed to act as required by law.”
An administrative law judge ruled against the private police company in 2022. A Superior Court judge reversed the decision and found in favor of Southeastern in August 2023.
“In that Plaintiff has never claimed that it owned or had possession and control of the relevant portion of I-77, this case necessarily hinges upon whether the party with whom Plaintiff contracted — namely, SCC — owned or had possession and control of that property,” Zachary explained. “Significantly, however, the superior court never expressly found or concluded that SCC had such ownership, possession, or control, although the court made a series of findings and conclusions regarding other important procedural and legal issues in this matter.”
Language in the agreement governing the I-77 project “strongly suggests” that neither SCC nor the project’s main contractor, Mobility Partners, ever gained ownership, possession, or control “that the Act requires in order to sanction Plaintiff’s policing activity in this case,” Zachary wrote.
Neither federal highway construction regulations nor SCC’s contract gave Southeastern employees authority to work beyond the Company Police Act’s restrictions, Zachary added.
“SCC’s contractual obligation to provide traffic control does not furnish blanket authorization for any agency with whom SCC contracted to provide that traffic control,” she explained. “If a company police agency was engaged to provide such services, it would still have to comply with the limited jurisdictional authority granted by the Act. Accordingly, it does not necessarily follow that the contract did (or could) authorize Plaintiff’s actions in this case.”
“It is well settled that a contract cannot authorize a party to violate the law,” she added.
“The polestar of the jurisdictional analysis for the question presented by this case is whether SCC had the requisite ownership, possession, or control of the I-77 HOT Lanes Project work zone sufficient for SCC to permit Plaintiff to provide the policing services in question consistent with the Act,” Zachary wrote. “Because the superior court did not answer this question and, as a result, demonstrated a misunderstanding of the law at issue in this case, we cannot say that the court properly applied the … standard of review.”
Now an administrative law judge “shall consider the contract between NCDOT and SCC, as well as the applicable federal regulations, in determining the scope of Plaintiff’s jurisdiction,” the Appeals Court opinion explained.
Arrowood and Judge Fred Gore joined Zachary’s opinion.
“Top NC court rejects case tied to Charlotte reporter’s records request” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.
![[WBT107.9FM] app promo graphics 2025](https://wbt.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2025/12/17653898024341.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=150&crop=0,0,100,150px)
