SCOTUS will not review NC Supreme Court body cam footage ruling

The US Supreme Court will not review a ruling from North Carolina’s top court that blocked a criminal defendant from using a subpoena to gain access to police bodycam footage.

The nation’s highest court agreed Monday to reject a petition from Charlotte Chemuti. She had appealed the North Carolina Supreme Court’s October 2025 ruling against her.

US Supreme Court justices offered no commentary about Monday’s decision.

Mooresville police charged Chemuti in October 2023 with resisting a public officer. In December 2023 Chemuti served a subpoena in District Court seeking access to police bodycam videos related to her arrest. A trial judge issued an order in January 2024 ordering Mooresville to comply with the subpoena.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected the town’s appeal in October 2024, but the state Supreme Court reversed that decision a year later.

The state’s highest court “issued an opinion holding that N.C. Gen. Stat § 132-1 provides the exclusive mechanism for a litigant to obtain body worn camera footage in North Carolina and therefore a criminal defendant is precluded from compelling the production of the body worn camera footage at her trial,” according to Chemuti’s Jan. 15 petition to the US Supreme Court.

“N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.4A(g) allows for the release of a law enforcement video by court order,” Chemuti’s lawyers wrote. “It is undisputed that the district court herein ordered the production of the law enforcement videos. Ms. Chemuti argued in the North Carolina Supreme Court that the trial court was authorized to issue the order to protect her Compulsory Process rights. However, the Court concluded that: ‘this statutory procedure supplants the use of a subpoena and is now the exclusive means to obtain these recordings for use in a criminal case.’”

The Sixth Amendment’s Compulsory Process Clause guarantees a defendant’s right to offer witness testimony and to compel witnesses’ attendance during a court proceeding. “The cases acknowledging a robust Compulsory Process right span nearly the entire existence of our nation,” according to Chemuti’s petition.

“The Compulsory Process right has always been recognized to extend beyond the ability to compel a witness to testify,” the petition added. “The right is understood to include a party’s ability to use the subpoena power to compel the production of ‘materials’ for use in the case, including tape recordings of conversations.”

Chemuti argued that the North Carolina Supreme Court decision conflicted with the top federal court’s 1987 decision in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.

“The North Carolina Supreme Court interpreted these principles as allowing a State to completely prohibit a criminal defendant from compelling the production of materials, favorable or not, simply because the State created an ancillary procedure that may provide them access to those materials,” according to the petition.

“In other words, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that Ritchie supported the notion that it was permissible for a State to completely prohibit a criminal defendant from issuing a subpoena for known materials to be produced at the trial if there is some ancillary procedure that might otherwise allow the defendant access to the materials.”

The State v. Chemuti case prompted a 5-2 split on North Carolina’s highest court last October.

“[S]tates can create special procedures to protect the confidentiality of certain records sought by criminal defendants,” Justice Richard Dietz wrote for the court’s Republican majority.

“In 2016, the General Assembly created this sort of special procedure for certain recordings made by law enforcement agencies,” Dietz explained. “The statute requires the requesting party to file a petition or complaint in superior court and affords the court broad discretion to determine which portions of the recording, if any, should be produced.”

The new procedure “supplants the use of a subpoena and is now the exclusive means to obtain these recordings for use in a criminal case,” Dietz added.

“This statutory procedure also does not unconstitutionally burden criminal defendants’ access to these recordings,” Dietz wrote. “The procedure has changed; the constitutional standard has not. Although the superior court has discretion in selecting which portions of the requested recording, if any, should be released, our precedent requires the court to exercise that discretion consistent with the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and compulsory process.”

“In sum, the only practical change brought about by N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A is the addition of an extra procedural step to obtain evidence needed for a complete defense,” Dietz concluded. “We acknowledge that this change may impose additional burdens on defendants, their counsel, and the courts. But the decision to impose those burdens, in an effort to protect material the law deems confidential, is a permissible policy choice of the legislature. This Court is therefore bound to respect it.”

Justice Allison Riggs wrote for the court’s two dissenting Democrats. “I would hold that N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A does not establish the exclusive method for criminal defendants in district court to request body camera footage.”

“The majority, in requiring a superior court order to release body camera footage, inserts the word ‘superior’ into the language of the statute,” Riggs added. “The plain language of the statute establishes that a court order is mandatory but does not create an exclusive procedure in the superior court. The majority then relies on other references to ‘superior court’ in the statute to argue that the legislature must have meant ‘superior court order’ when the statute uses ‘court order.’ To the extent that these provisions allow superior courts to order the release of body camera footage, the language is permissive, not mandatory.”

“Furthermore, to the extent that the use of ‘court order’ and references to ‘superior court’ create any ambiguity in the statute, I would resolve those ambiguities in favor of more easy access for criminal defendants to materials that may be exonerating or significant to their cases,” the dissent continued. “The majority’s interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A risks violating defendants’ constitutional rights and impeding judicial efficiency.”

“SCOTUS will not review NC Supreme Court body cam footage ruling” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.