Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 11 FILED

2021 Nov-01 PM 03:08

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

BRANDIE ROBINSON, as personal )

representative of the estate of )
Crystal Ragland, deceased, )
) Civil Action Number
Plaintiff, ) 5:21-cv-00704-AKK
)
v. )
)
CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, et al., )

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case arose from Crystal Ragland’s death at the hands of Huntsville police

officers. Ragland, an Army veteran suffering from PTSD, was killed by officers

who were responding to reports that Ragland had a gun and was pointing it at her

neighbors. Doc. 48 at 4-7. Though the court dismissed plaintiff Brandie Robinson’s

lawsuit, see id. at 13-14, public interest in the shooting remains understandably high.

Now before the court is AL.com’s request for public access to bodycam footage filed

in support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.1 For the reasons stated below, the

request is due to be granted.

1
See Letter from Ashley Remkus, Investigative Reporter, Alabama Media Grp., to the undersigned
(Oct. 26, 2021), which is attached herein as Exhibit 1.
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 11

A.

In the early stages of this case, the parties jointly proposed a consent protective

order which would permit the parties to designate materials as confidential prior to

production. Doc. 7. The proposed order stipulated that “no materials designated as

confidential shall be disclosed . . . to the media or otherwise published or

disseminated,” but provided that the parties could file a motion objecting to any

confidentiality designation to bring the matter before the court. Id. at 5-6. The

proposed order also allowed for its terms to be modified or limited “either by written

agreement of the parties or by motion of any party for good cause shown.” Id. at 8.

The court adopted the parties’ proposed order verbatim. Doc. 8.

Relying on this protective order, the defendants then moved for leave to file

evidence – specifically, bodycam footage from the defendant officers who shot

Ragland and a compilation of screenshots from the videos – under seal in support of

their motion to dismiss. See docs. 28, 32. Robinson, the personal representative of

Ragland’s estate, objected:

I understand that [unsealing the case] would allow evidence

surrounding this death to be consumed by the public. I understand that
some of this evidence including videos, audio, [and] written reports are
extremely sensitive and graphic. However, I have weighed those
concerns and believe it is clearly in the best interest of my family and
the public interest for this case to be unsealed. We believe unsealing
this case will ensure transparency and accountability in the pursuit of
justice.

2
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 11

Docs. 29, 29-1. In light of the then-pending motion to dismiss, the court temporarily

granted the defendants’ motion to file under seal, but promised to “revisit the issue

after ruling on the motion to dismiss.” Doc. 35. That time has now come.

B.

The defendants urge the court to maintain the confidentiality of the officers’

bodycam footage despite AL.com’s request.2 In support, they cite both the

protective order itself and Alabama Code § 12-21-3.1(b), which maintains that law

enforcement investigative materials, including bodycam footage, “are not public

records” and “are privileged communications protected from disclosure.” Exhibit 2.

The court treats Robinson’s previous objection, doc. 29, as a motion objecting to the

confidentiality designation, and Robinson has responded in support of AL.com’s

request, see doc. 50. Therefore, the issue of unsealing the footage is now properly

before the court under the explicit terms of the protective order. See doc. 8 at 2.3

And because the bodycam videos were filed in support of a substantive motion that

required judicial resolution on the merits, and are therefore judicial records, this

court is bound by the federal common law – not Alabama state law – in determining

2
See E-mails from Greg Burgess, Att’y for Defendants, to the undersigned (Oct. 26, 2021, 16:18
CDT; Oct. 27, 2021, 14:00 CDT), attached herein as Exhibits 2 and 3.
3
See also F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 61 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)) (“District courts are in a superior position to decide
whether to enter or modify protective orders, and it is well established that ‘the decision as to
access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’”).
3
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 11

whether disclosure is proper. See Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr. v. Advance Loc.

Media, LLC, 918 F.3d 1161, 1167 (11th Cir. 2019).

1.

“The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential

component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the

process.” Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311

(11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the media and public have a presumptive right to

access judicial records. Id. This right is not absolute, and when deciding whether

to withhold a judicial record from the public, the court must balance the competing

interests of the parties to determine whether there is good cause to deny public

access. F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013). Among the

relevant factors in this analysis are “whether the records are sought for such

illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial

advantage, whether access is likely to promote public understanding of historically

significant events, and whether the press has already been permitted substantial

access to the contents of the records.” Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th

Cir.1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 602-03, n.11

(1978)). In addition to these factors, “a judge’s exercise of discretion in deciding

whether to release judicial records should be informed by a sensitive appreciation of

4
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 5 of 11

the circumstances that led to the production of the particular [record] in question.”

Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, 602-03).

2.

In their initial motion to file under seal, the defendants argued only that the

bodycam footage contained “confidential and sensitive information that should not

be shared with the general public.” Doc. 28 at 2. The defendants now argue also

that the “identities of the officers involved in this case—names and faces—are

readily discernable from the [bodycam] videos,” and that to “law enforcement

officers routinely involved in police-citizen encounters and investigative

assignments requiring anonymity and surprise, minimizing the public disclosure of

officer identities is significant to job performance and personal safety.” Exhibit 3.

Thus, the defendants contend, “the release of these videos as proposed by AL.com

could compromise the safety of the defendant officers and foreclose them from

serving (or continuing to serve) in any undercover capacity now or in the future.”

Id.

In response, Robinson notes that the public already has considerable access to

the contents of the bodycam footage via the court’s memorandum opinion, including

the identities of the officers, and that the “City of Huntsville has concluded its

internal investigation and there are no other ongoing investigations into the matter

at this time that would outweigh the public’s need to have access to the contents of

5
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 6 of 11

the videos.” Doc. 50 at 4-7. Robinson also references multiple examples of recent

police misconduct in Huntsville and argues that “[g]iven the ongoing disputes

regarding the matter of policing as it relates to mentally disabled in the City of

Huntsville, the public has a right to be informed as to important matters of public

concern.” Id. at 10.

3.

Analysis of these legal arguments would not be complete without

acknowledging their broader societal context. Crystal Ragland’s killing, and this

subsequent lawsuit and request for records, comes during a time of important

reckoning in our country. To state the obvious, alleged systemic issues in policing

are at the forefront of the public consciousness, sparked by countless instances of

excessive force by police officers in recent years.4 Particularly relevant to this case,

African Americans and those experiencing mental health crises are victims of police

violence at disproportionately high rates. 5 Because of this violence, community

members, both nationally and here in Alabama, have organized to demand

4
See Cheryl W. Thompson, Fatal Police Shootings of Unarmed Black People Reveal Troubling
Patterns, NPR (Jan. 25, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/956177021/fatal-police-
shootings-of-unarmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patterns; Nicole Dungca et al., A dozen high-
profile fatal encounters that have galvanized protests nationwide, Washington Post (June 8, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-dozen-high-profile-fatal-encounters-that-have-
galvanized-protests-nationwide/2020/06/08/4fdbfc9c-a72f-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html.
5
See Police Shootings Database, Washington Post (Oct. 26, 2021),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database; 2020 Police
Violence Report, Mapping Police Violence (2020), https://policeviolencereport.org.
6
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 7 of 11

transparency and accountability in how law enforcement officers police their

communities.6 Such transparency is crucial to maintaining trust in our criminal

justice system and in our democratic society as a whole, especially because police

use-of-force incidents are historically underreported or miscategorized by police

departments. 7 And because of the many doctrinal barriers that plaintiffs face in

pursuing judicial remedies for alleged police misconduct, 8 public access to videos

like those at issue here, even where there is no constitutional violation, is imperative

to foster dialogue about whether structural reforms in policing are needed.

4.

The Newman factors weigh in favor of disclosure. To begin, AL.com does

not seek the bodycam footage for an illegitimate purpose, but instead requests access

for the precise goal of “promot[ing] public understanding of historically significant

events.” Newman, 696 F.2d at 803. As Ashley Remkus writes in her request, “[u]se

6
See Eliott C. McLaughlin, How George Floyd’s death ignited a racial reckoning that shows no
signs of slowing down, CNN (Aug. 9, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/09/us/george-floyd-
protests-different-why/index.html; Ashley Remkus, Rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray: What
happened in Huntsville through the eyes of protesters, AL.com (June 8, 2020),
https://www.al.com/news/2020/06/rubber-bullets-tear-gas-pepper-spray-what-happened-in-
huntsville-through-the-eyes-of-protesters.html.
7
See Tim Arango & Shaila Dewan, More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study
Says, New York Times (Sept. 30, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/police-killings-
undercounted-study.html; Rob Barry & Coulter Jones, Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted
in Federal Stats, Wall Street Journal (Dec. 3, 2014), https://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-
police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504.
8
See generally Sunita Patel, Jumping Hurdles to Sue the Police, 104 Minn. L. Rev. 2257 (2020).
7
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 8 of 11

of force has been of great public and political interest in Huntsville in 2021,”

following the murder conviction of another police officer “for the shooting of a

suicidal man.” Exhibit A. As to this case, Remkus states, “the public once again

has a great interest in seeing the videos that show the operation of the city police

department and what happened when officers Jonathan Henderson and Brett Collum

encountered Crystal Ragland on May 30, 2019.” Id. And, as Remkus notes, “[i]n

the more than two years since [Ragland’s death], public tax dollars have funded the

litigation resulting from the fatal encounter, yet the public has been mostly kept in

the dark.” Id.

The court agrees that releasing the bodycam footage will allow the public to

gain a better understanding of the officers’ conduct, which is especially significant

given the broader context in both Huntsville and the country at large. Moreover,

since the court’s memorandum opinion already discussed the events surrounding the

shooting in detail, “the press has already been permitted substantial access to the

contents of the records.” Newman, 696 F.2d at 803. Indeed, local news coverage

has already quoted portions of this retelling,9 and the release of the footage itself

thus does not implicate privacy concerns that weigh significantly against disclosure.

9
See Ashley Remkus, Judge dismisses lawsuit against Huntsville officers who shot and killed
Crystal Ragland, AL.com (Oct. 19, 2021), https://www.al.com/news/2021/10/judge-dismisses-
lawsuit-against-huntsville-officers-who-shot-and-killed-crystal-ragland.html (quoting the court’s
memorandum opinion); Judge dismisses lawsuit against Huntsville Police officers who killed
Army veteran Crystal Ragland, WHNT (Oct. 19, 2021), https://whnt.com/news/judge-dismisses-
lawsuit-against-huntsville-police-officers-who-killed-army-veteran-crystal-ragland (same).
8
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 9 of 11

In sum, based on a sensitive appreciation of the circumstances and a balancing

of the parties’ interests, there is no good cause to deny public access to the bodycam

footage in this case. See AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 62; Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311.

Therefore, because all three Newman factors weigh in favor of public access and

such access is vital in an open democratic society – including for the scrutiny of

judicial decisions dismissing cases alleging excessive force – AL.com’s request is

due to be granted.

5.

The defendants request alternatively that the court orders redaction of the

defendant officers’ identities because “the widespread dissemination and publication

of their names, faces, voices, and other identifying characteristics over the internet .

. . [is] a much larger and very specific threat to officer safety and privacy.” Exhibit

3. The defendant officers were public officials acting under the authority of the City

of Huntsville, and the footage depicts the officers performing their duties in a public

space in front of multiple witnesses. As such, the officers’ actions are rightfully the

subject of public scrutiny, and their limited right to privacy in these actions does not

override the public’s right of access to the full contents of the footage. See Toole v.

City of Atlanta, 798 F. App'x 381, 388 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Smith v. City of

Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)) (discussing diminished privacy

expectations of police officers acting in their official capacity on matters of public

9
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 10 of 11

concern). 10, 11 Therefore, because the officers are already named in the complaint

and other court filings, and due to the importance of public access here, the court

will decline the defendants’ request.

C.

Accordingly, the court’s order temporarily granting the defendants’ motion

for leave to file evidence under seal, doc. 35, is REVISED, and the defendants are

ORDERED to file exhibits A-C of their motion to dismiss, doc. 32, with the court

by November 5, 2021, redacted only insofar as is necessary to remove identifying

information of non-party individuals. The defendants are also ORDERED to

produce these exhibits to Brandie Robinson and AL.com by the same date.

10
See also Perez v. City of Fresno, 482 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1048-49 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (citing In re
Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011)) (denying
request to blur non-party ambulance employees’ faces in wrongful death lawsuit where (1)
disclosure of bodycam footage was proper under a common law analysis and (2) the non-party
employees were acting in a public capacity alongside the defendant police officers); Sampson v.
City of El Centro, 2015 WL 11658713, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (permitting release of
bodycam footage, despite privacy interests weighing against disclosure, where non-parties’
identities were redacted from the relevant videos and photographs).
11
The Alabama Supreme Court, albeit it in a different context, has similarly held that “the right
to privacy does not prohibit the broadcast of matter that is of legitimate public or general interest,
[and] [t]his concept is based upon the rationale that a right of action for invasion of privacy must
give way to the interest of the public in being informed.” McCaig v. Talladega Pub. Co., 544
So. 2d 875, 879–80 (Ala. 1989) (internal citations omitted). And, as the Court put it in another
case, “the white light of publicity safeguards the public[,] and free disclosure of truth is the best
protection against tyranny.” Smith v. Doss, 37 So. 2d 118, 120 (Ala. 1948).
10
Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51 Filed 11/01/21 Page 11 of 11

DONE the 1st day of November, 2021.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51-1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 2 FILED
2021 Nov-01 PM 03:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Oct. 26, 2021

Honorable Abdul K. Kallon

United States District Judge, Northern District of Alabama
Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse
1729 5th Ave. N.
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Subject: Request for exhibits

DELIVERED VIA EMAIL

Dear Judge Kallon:

I am a reporter for the Alabama Media Group, which publishes AL.com, The Huntsville Times,
The Birmingham News and the Press Register in Mobile. I am writing to you to request that the
bodycam footage in Robinson v. City of Huntsville, be made public.

Use of force has been of great public and political interest in Huntsville in 2021, following the
trial of another officer, William Ben Darby, who was convicted of murder this summer for the
shooting of a suicidal man. The mayor and chief have said that shooting was within policy.

In the Ragland case, the public once again has a great interest in seeing the videos that show
the operation of the city police department and what happened when officers Jonathan
Henderson and Brett Collum encountered Crystal Ragland on May 30, 2019.

In the more than two years since, public tax dollars have funded the litigation resulting from the
fatal encounter, yet the public has been mostly kept in the dark.

Specifically, I am seeking copies of two body-worn camera videos that were identified as
Exhibits A and B and described in detail in the memorandum opinion filed on Oct. 15, 2021.

Ms. Ragland’s family supports making the videos available for public viewing. In an affidavit filed
in this case on Aug. 19, 2021, Ms. Brandie Robinson, who is Ms. Ragland’s sister and the
representative of her estate, asked that the videos be unsealed. “We believe unsealing the case
will ensure transparency and accountability in the pursuit of justice,” Ms. Robinson said in the
affidavit.

To mitigate any burden on the Court, I am willing to pay reasonable fees for copies, or to
provide any necessary equipment, such as flash drives or disks.
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51-1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 2

Sincerely,
.
Ashley Remkus

Investigative reporter
Alabama Media Group
200 West Side Square
Huntsville, Alabama 35802
aremkus@al.com
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51-2 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 1 FILED
2021 Nov-01 PM 03:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

From: Greg Burgess

Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:18 PM
To: ALNDdb_Kallon_Chambers
Cc:

Subject: RE: Request for exhibits

CAUTION - EXTERNAL:

Dear Judge Kallon: 

Thank you for your email. We appreciate the opportunity to respond before the Court rules on AL.com’s
request. 

Defendants object to the release of the body-worn camera (“BWC”) videos that have been filed under seal
in this case. Pursuant to section 12-21-3.1(b) of the Alabama Code, the BWC videos are “not public records” and
therefore “privileged” law enforcement investigative materials. Id. (“Law enforcement investigative reports and
related investigative material are not public records. Law enforcement investigative reports, records, field notes,
witness statements, and other investigative writings or recordings are privileged communications protected
from disclosure.”) (emphasis added); see also Something Extra Publ'g, Inc.. d/b/a Lagniappe Weekly v. Mack,
No. 1190106, 2021 WL 4344346 (Ala. Sept. 24, 2021) (reaffirming that section 12-21-3.1(b) exempts law
enforcement investigative materials, including videos, from requests under Alabama Open Records Act).
Furthermore, the BWC videos are subject to a consent protective order entered by this Court which designates
them as “confidential” and expressly prohibits their disclosure to, among other third parties, the media. (Doc. 8,
§§ 1, 5). Importantly, the filing of the BWC videos with the Court as evidence does not strip their confidentiality
designation under the protective order. (See id. at § 7). Lastly, these protections survive the conclusion of this
case. (Id. at § 10).

If the Court would like defendants to file a written objection beyond this email or address any particular
issue, we will gladly do so. 

C. Gregory Burgess
LANIER FORD
2101 West Clinton Avenue, Suite 102(35805)
Post Office Box 2087 | Huntsville, Alabama 35804-2087

Website:www.lanierford.com

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 

Any federal tax advice contained in this message, including attachments, may not be relied upon to avoid any
tax penalties or to support the promotion or marketing of any federal tax transaction. 
1
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51-3 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 2 FILED
2021 Nov-01 PM 03:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

From: Greg Burgess

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 2:01 PM
To: ALNDdb_Kallon_Chambers
Cc:

Subject: RE: Request for exhibits

CAUTION - EXTERNAL:

Dear Judge Kallon:

Please accept this supplement to defendants’ objection to the release of the BWC videos.

Beyond the reasons stated previously, there are other legitimate concerns with releasing the BWC videos
to the media and, ultimately, the public. The identities of the officers involved in this case—names and faces—
are readily discernable from the BWC videos. To law enforcement officers routinely involved in police-citizen
encounters and investigative assignments requiring anonymity and surprise, minimizing the public disclosure of
officer identities is significant to job performance and personal safety (including the safety of officer families).
This is especially true where, as here, one of the police officer defendants now holds a position with the
Department of Justice. In this role, the defendant officer locates and apprehends fugitives, an inherently dangerous
endeavor which regularly requires him to serve in an undercover capacity. As a result, it is imperative that the
BWC videos are not disclosed because such disclosure carries with it the very real danger of displaying the
officers’ names, faces, voices, and other identifying characteristics in a public, permanent, and uncontrolled
forum. In other words, the release of these videos as proposed by AL.com could compromise the safety of the
defendant officers and foreclose them from serving (or continuing to serve) in any undercover capacity now or in
the future. Indeed, as this Court can imagine, it would take only a little determination, but not extraordinary skill,
for someone with ill will toward these officers to then connect their identities with their personal residences, such
as through a probate records search. That risk, albeit a difficult one to fully assess, is extremely troubling to my
clients. Accordingly, for these additional reasons as well as the ones explained yesterday, we object to the release
of the BWC videos as requested by AL.com. See Bennett v. United States, No. 12-61499-CIV, 2013 WL 3821625,
at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2013) (relying on Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) and
rejecting request to unseal documents); see also generally Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[A] judge's exercise of discretion in deciding whether to release judicial
records should be informed by a ‘sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to ... [the] production [of
the particular document in question].’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 603 (1978)).

To the extent the Court is inclined to overrule our objections, we would respectfully request that the names
and faces of the defendant officers depicted in the BWC videos be fully redacted. In this event, we would be
willing to pay the reasonable cost of such redaction or handle that task internally. We recognize that the names of
the officers have already been disclosed through certain public filings accessible through Pacer. Nonetheless, we
view the widespread dissemination and publication of their names, faces, voices, and other identifying
characteristics over the Internet—which will occur when AL.com runs its story with the BWC videos and from
there that information will inevitably be shared extensively via social media platforms and so on—as a much
larger and very specific threat to officer safety and privacy.

C. Gregory Burgess
1
 Case 5:21-cv-00704-AKK Document 51-3 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 2

LANIER FORD
2101 West Clinton Avenue, Suite 102(35805)
Post Office Box 2087 | Huntsville, Alabama 35804-2087

Website:www.lanierford.com

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 

Any federal tax advice contained in this message, including attachments, may not be relied upon to avoid any
tax penalties or to support the promotion or marketing of any federal tax transaction.