Ethics

On February 1, 2004, in Sarasota, Florida, eleven year old Carlie Brucia left a sleepover at a friend's house to walk home. She was never seen alive again. Several days later her body was found in a church parking lot a few miles from her home. With the help of a surveillance camera and several tips to the police, her killer was swiftly identified and charged.

In June 2005, Carlie's father, Joseph Brucia, asked a Florida judge to restrict who gets to see the photos of his slain daughter. He made an appeal that the crime scene photos and autopsy photos of his daughter be kept from the media, fearing that the photos would be exploited. Circuit Judge Andrew Owens ruled in Brucia's favor and ordered that the evidence be sealed. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Tampa Tribune and other news agencies are fighting to gain full access to the photographs and case evidence. The issue in this case is the victim's family's right to privacy vs freedom of the press as supported by the First Amendment.

The Brucia family is concerned that 'inappropriate, disreputable magazines and Internet locations' may plan to publish the photographs. Although Carlie's father acknowledged that he didn't think most reputable media would publish the photos, he said 'It's worth it to me for my peace of mind to ensure that it doesn't happen.' The family is fighting to protect their right to privacy and to preserve the dignity of their daughter Carlie. Judge Owens cited state laws governing autopsy photos and the privacy rights of the Brucias in his decision. The Florida Legislature made autopsy photos confidential in 2001 after Dale Earnhart's widow sought help in keeping his autopsy photos private.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The right to say and publish what one wants is a basic element of our freedom. This includes things that others wished were not said or published about themselves. In recent years, the Supreme Court has heard many cases of freedom of speech/press vs privacy, and in nearly every case, First Amendment rights have prevailed.

In the 1970s, Americans pressed the government to make itself open to scrutiny after the Vietnam War and the Watergate Scandal. Since 9/11, Americans are concerned about terrorism and are more willing to allow government secrecy once again. According to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, openness is one of the fundamental checks on power and lack of openness threatens our freedoms. Mike Connelly, the executive editor of the Herald-Tribune says his paper is fighting for full access to the evidence and the trial to help preserve our free society. He stated that neither Carlie Brucia's killer nor anyone else should be put in jail or life or sentenced to death on the basis of secret evidence. The paper does not plan to publish the crime scene photos, but their attorneys have argued that it is important for reports to see all of the evidence to accurately report on a case. It is their First Amendment right.

As of December 1, 2005, this battle was still being waged in the Florida courts. In November, an appeals court ruled that the photographs in the Carlie Brucia case be unsealed and could be viewed by the press. In the case of Saratoga Herald-Tribune v. State of Florida, the appellate judges wrote 'we can fully understand that they (the photographs) must be extraordinarily distressing to the family and friends of the young victim. However, these photographs are evidence in a trial where the State, on behalf of the people, is using its power to pursue the most extreme penalties. Secret evidence is the hallmark of an oppressive regime; it is not a policy generally acceptable in a free society with courts that must be open to the people to assure the legitimacy of those courts and the fairness of the proceedings that occur therein.' They also state that 'A trial is a public event. What transpires in the courtroom is public property. There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.' The judges decided to 'hold that the line of First Amendment cases recognizing the public property interest in what occurs in this nation's criminal courts and the role of the media, under the First Amendment, to insure the proper judicial administration and function of the courts and its officers, permit the inspection of the challenged exhibits.'

However, before reporters had a chance