Are the Highway Patrol's copies of a North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket (the District First Sergeant's transmittal copy and the issuing officer's enforcement copy with notes) public records that any member of the public can inspect, either before or after the trial of the offense?

Plain-English summary

In 1978, Assistant Secretary Barbara Smith of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety asked the AG three related questions about traffic ticket copies and public-records access. The NC Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint exists in multiple copies. One copy (the "Departmental Copy") is given by the issuing Highway Patrolman to the District First Sergeant, who later forwards it to the Traffic Records Section of the Division of Motor Vehicles. Another copy (the "Enforcement Division Copy") is kept by the issuing officer and includes the officer's notes and other evidence about the stop and the offense.

Could members of the public demand to inspect these copies? Assistant Attorney General Isaac T. Avery III answered no to all three variants.

Departmental Copy at District HQ: The District First Sergeant is merely a "conduit" for the form on its way to the DMV. He does not file or maintain a log of these records; he just passes them along. The Public Records Act defines a "custodian" as "the public official in charge of an office having public records." G.S. § 132-2. The First Sergeant does not fit that definition; he is not the custodian of records that briefly pass through his hands. Additionally, custodians must "furnish certified copies" on payment of fees, and no statute authorizes a Highway Patrol Sergeant to certify ticket copies. The clerk of court (G.S. § 7A-103(6)) and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (G.S. § 20-42(b)) can certify; the Sergeant cannot. Members of the public who want this information should go to the clerk of court or the DMV.

Enforcement Division Copy before trial: This is the officer's working copy with notes and evidence. North Carolina has long held that there is no common law right of discovery in criminal cases (State v. Goldburg, 261 N.C. 181 (1964)). Officer notes are not subject to discovery by the criminal defendant under cases like State v. Blue, 20 N.C. App. 386 (1974). The AG reasoned that if even the criminal defendant cannot get these notes, the general public certainly cannot. Despite the broad language of the Public Records Act, courts have held certain records confidential (prisoner files in Goble v. Bound, 13 N.C. App. 579 (1972), for example). A prior AG opinion (44 NCAG 340 (1975)) had concluded that investigative reports and memoranda are not public records under Chapter 132. The same rule applies to the Enforcement Division Copy.

The AG also cross-referenced Florida's analogous statute and case law (City of Tampa v. Harold, 352 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App. 1977)): "Police records are ordinarily confidential."

Enforcement Division Copy after trial: The same answer. Even after the case ends, the officer's notes and evidence (other than what was actually introduced at trial and became part of the trial record) retain their character as investigative work product. Allowing public inspection would have a chilling effect on officers' note-taking, with no appreciable public benefit. The trial-record portions are publicly accessible through the courthouse like any other trial exhibit; the other matters remain confidential.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1978. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. North Carolina's public records law has been substantially expanded since 1978, with key amendments addressing law enforcement records. The current regime in G.S. § 132-1.4 sets specific rules for law enforcement records of criminal investigations and intelligence, generally treating active investigative records as confidential and certain post-conclusion records as public with carve-outs for active investigations. The Goble line on prisoner files has been overlaid by federal HIPAA requirements and the modern public-records framework for inmate information. The basic principle (officer working notes are not public records) is durable, but specific records and time-of-disclosure questions should be analyzed under current G.S. § 132-1.4 and related statutes.

Background and statutory framework

The NC Public Records Act of 1935 (originally a much narrower statute) was substantially rewritten in 1975 to establish today's broad-coverage framework. The Act presumes openness: documents made or received pursuant to law in connection with public business by NC government agencies are public records, subject to inspection by anyone, with custodians required to permit inspection and provide certified copies on payment of statutory fees.

The Act also has implicit limits. Not every government activity generates "records" in the relevant sense, and not every government employee is a "custodian." The 1978 AG opinion exploited both limits.

The custodian limit was the cleaner part. A First Sergeant at a Patrol district HQ is not running an "office having public records"; he is a transit point. Recognizing him as a custodian would have meant every government employee who ever touched a paper would have to grant public inspection, which is not what the Act contemplates. The custodian must be someone with ongoing record-management responsibility, and the AG found that role located in the clerk of court (for filed complaints) and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (for vehicle and driver records).

The investigative-notes limit was more contested but resolved early in the Act's history. The 1975 AG opinion (44 NCAG 340) had already set out the rule that investigative reports and memoranda are not public records under Chapter 132. The 1978 opinion extended that rule to the Enforcement Division Copy of the Uniform Traffic Ticket. The reasoning rested on three pillars: (1) criminal discovery cases establish that officer notes are not subject to defendant discovery, so a fortiori the public should not have access; (2) NC courts had already recognized that despite the Act's broad language, some records are functionally confidential (Goble); and (3) the policy rationale (chilling effect on officer note-taking) supported the categorical exclusion.

The Florida cross-reference is a useful tell about how the AG was thinking. Florida's Sunshine Law is famously open, but even Florida courts had held police records ordinarily confidential. If a state with stronger statutory openness presumptions reached that result, NC's weaker statutory text supported the same result.

Common questions

Could a journalist get the Enforcement Division Copy through a public records request?

Under the 1978 opinion, no. The officer's notes and evidence beyond what was introduced at trial are not public records. The journalist's better routes were the clerk of court for the filed complaint and the DMV for driver/vehicle records.

What if the officer's notes contained exculpatory evidence?

Criminal procedure separately requires disclosure of Brady material (exculpatory evidence) to the defendant. The 1978 opinion addressed only public-records access, not criminal-procedure obligations. A defendant entitled to Brady disclosure would get it through the criminal case, not through a public records request.

Did this opinion mean the public could not investigate Highway Patrol misconduct?

No. The opinion addressed traffic-ticket copies, not internal affairs records or misconduct investigations. Misconduct records have their own statutory framework (now Chapter 126 personnel rules for State employees, plus § 132-1.4 for law enforcement-specific records), with carve-outs that became more developed over time.

Could the General Assembly have made these records public?

Yes. The legislature has full authority to designate categories of records as public. The 1978 opinion interpreted the statute as it then stood; it did not impose any constitutional barrier to broader disclosure if the legislature chose to require it.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/public-records-north-carolina-uniform-traffic-ticket-and-complaint-right-of-public-inspection/

Citations

• G.S. § 132-1, § 132-2, § 132-6
• G.S. § 7A-148(b), § 7A-103(6)
• G.S. § 15A-302, § 20-42(b), § 20-188
• G.S. §§ 148-74, 148-76
• State v. Goldburg, 261 N.C. 181, 134 S.E.2d 334 (1964)
• State v. Davis, 282 N.C. 107, 191 S.E.2d 664 (1972)
• State v. Blue, 20 N.C. App. 386, 201 S.E.2d 548 (1974)
• State v. Jones, 23 N.C. App. 686 (1974)
• Goble v. Bound, 13 N.C. App. 579, aff'd, 281 N.C. 307, 188 S.E.2d 347 (1972)
• City of Tampa v. Harold, 352 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App. 1977)
• State v. Johnson, 284 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)
• 44 NCAG 340 (1975)

Original opinion text

Requested By:

Barbara Smith
Assistant Secretary
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety

Questions:

• Is the Departmental Copy of the North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint, which is submitted by a Highway Patrolman to the District First Sergeant who transmits it to the Traffic Record Station of the Division of Motor Vehicles, a public record and subject to inspection during the time it is maintained at the Patrol District Headquarters?
• Is the Enforcement Division Copy of the North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint, which is maintained by the officer issuing the complaint and includes his notes and other evidence, a public record and subject to inspection prior to trial of the offense charged in the complaint?
• Is the Enforcement Division Copy of the North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint a public record and subject to inspection in the Patrol District Headquarters after the trial of the offense charged in the complaint?

Conclusions:

• No.
• No.
• No.

The General Assembly has defined the term public records to mean:

"'Public record' or 'public records' shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, . . . or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina Government or its subdivisions."

G.S. 132-1. A custodian of a public record is the "public official in charge of an office having public records shall permit them to be inspected and examined at reasonable times and under his supervision by any person, and he shall furnish certified copies thereof on payment of fees as prescribed by law." G.S. 132-6.

The North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint is authorized pursuant to G.S. 7A-148(b) and G.S. 15A-302. There is no statutory requirement for disposition of copies of the uniform complaint except that a copy of the complaint must be delivered to the person cited. G.S. 15A-302(d).

The initial question is whether the District First Sergeant is required to allow inspection of the Departmental Copy of the North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint during the time that he has the copy and before he transmits it to the Traffic Records Section of the Division of Motor Vehicles. This copy of the complaint contains the same information as the original and the copy filed in the clerk's office. The First Sergeant is just a conduit for this copy of the complaint. The General Assembly could not have intended that each person who receives public record and passes it on would be required to allow that public record to be inspected during the time, however short, that the individual has possession of the record. Only a person "having custody of public records" is required to permit inspection. G.S. 132-6. A custodian is the "public official in charge of an office having public records." G.S. 132-2. It does not seem that the General Assembly intended that the District First Sergeant be a custodian within the meaning of the statute. He does not file or maintain a log of the records temporarily in his possession other than the report he prepares.

In addition, a custodian must "furnish certified copies" of the public records upon payments of fees prescribed by law. There is no authority, that we can ascertain, for a Sergeant in the Highway Patrol to certify copies of complaints. The clerk of court may certify copies of complaints on file with him. G.S. 7A-103(6). The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles is also authorized to certify copies of records on file in his office. G.S. 20-42(b). In the situation described, the District First Sergeant is not a custodian of public records and therefore is not required to permit them to be inspected and examined and is not required to furnish certified copies of them. This information on record can be obtained from the clerk of court or the Commission of Motor Vehicles. The Highway Patrol does not have the personnel necessary to allow such inspection in all 49 districts.

The second question presented is whether the Enforcement Division Copy of the North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint which is maintained by the arresting officer and contains his notes and other evidence is a public record and subject to inspection and examination. It has been consistently held that there is no common law right to discovery in a criminal case. State v. Goldburg, 261 N.C. 181, 134 S.E.2d 334, cert. den. 377 U.S. 978 (1964). Even though a law enforcement officer makes his notes and gathers evidence pursuant to the authority granted him by law, i.e., G.S. 20-188, if such records and notes are not required to be disclosed to a criminal defendant, we fail to see how the same notes are required to be disclosed to the general public. A criminal defendant can only obtain those items which are allowed by the criminal discovery statutes. See State v. Davis, 282 N.C. 107, 191 S.E.2d 664 (1972); State v. Blue, 20 N.C. App. 386, 389, 201 S.E.2d 548 (1974) (notes of officer not subject to discovery); State v. Jones, 23 N.C. App. 686, 688, 204 N.C. 508 (1974), cert. den. 286 N.C. 418 (reports of officers or work product of police not subject to disclosure in this case).

Despite the broad language of the Public Records Act, supra, the courts have held certain records as confidential. G.S. 148-74 and 148-76 require that records be maintained on prisoners. They are not specifically declared to be confidential. However, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner, who is an interested party, may not see such files. Goble v. Bound, 13 N.C. App. 579, 581, aff'd 281 N.C. 307, 188 S.E.2d 347 (1972).

The notes, opinions, and perceptions of the law enforcement officer may be contained on his copy of the Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint. Based upon the above case law, the opinion of this Office issued on June 3, 1975, to the Honorable J. Herbert Haynes, Sheriff of McDowell County, 44 NCAG 340 (1975), is still valid. This opinion concluded that investigative reports and memoranda concerning investigations of crimes are not public records within this sense of Chapter 132 and are therefore not subject to public inspection. This opinion and the reasoning supporting it would apply to the Enforcement Division Copy of the North Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint.

Florida has a similar statute to North Carolina. Chapter 119.01 of the Florida statute provides that "(it) is the policy of this state that all state, county and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person." A public record is defined to mean ". . . all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency." Chapter 119.011(1), Florida Statutes. This language is almost identical to the North Carolina statute. The Florida Courts have construed this statute to exempt police records.

"First, it is clear that the police reports are not public records within the meaning of Section 119.02, Florida Statutes (1975) and thus need not be held open at all times for personal inspection by any person. Police records are ordinarily confidential." City of Tampa v. Harold, 352 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. App., 1977).

The Florida Supreme Court held that police records could be produced and used in evidence in a trial only in a rather restrictive sense and outline that criteria governing production and use.

"It depends, as we have said, upon 1) being critical, 2) upon a material and vital point, 3) reasonably exculpatory of defendant within sound judicial discretion, and 4) after 'in camera' review and deletion of improper matter." State v. Johnson, 284 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)

Florida has recognized the need, as our previous opinion did, for police records to be held confidential. The items in question here are just as much police record as any other form. They must therefore be deemed confidential and not subject to inspection absent an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

After the trial of the matter charged by the Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint, the notes and evidence gathered by the officer would still prevent this item from being a public record. The officer would be less likely to put down the necessary information to assure proper prosecution of the criminal matter if he knew that such notes and impressions would be subject to inspection and publication. Revealing such records would have a chilling effect upon a law enforcement officer and no appreciable public benefit. The impressions and notes which are introduced at the trial as evidence become part of the record of the trial and may be inspected in the courthouse. All other matters which were not introduced at the trial should not be required to be disclosed. The same rationale for not disclosing the notes of the law enforcement officer before trial would seem also to apply after trial.

Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General

Isaac T. Avery, III
Assistant Attorney General