Could a South Carolina rescue squad photograph a deceased accident victim and display the pictures?

Plain-English summary

A Darlington County coroner raised concerns about a rescue squad photographing deceased people at accident scenes. The August 2001 informal letter said the purpose and use of the pictures mattered, and the request gave too few facts to determine either. Photographs for emergency-personnel training could be appropriate; photographs for a possible criminal prosecution could have evidentiary value. Unauthorized, gratuitous display raised a different issue because relatives could have a protectable privacy interest in images of the deceased.

The AG said photographs included in autopsy records should remain confidential under the office’s earlier view. Even when a rescue-squad picture was not part of an autopsy record, the same privacy rationale weighed against public disclosure. The letter identified county-council funding oversight and EMS professional standards as ways to address improper conduct. It expressly said this position should not affect a valid Freedom of Information Act request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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.

Historical summary

Coroners and rescue squads

The opinion distinguished official training or evidence use from unauthorized display. It made no finding about the squad’s motive or any actual disclosure in the coroner’s case.

Families and records custodians

The letter identified relatives’ privacy interest in images of a decedent and treated photographs made part of autopsy records as confidential. It did not purport to defeat a valid FOIA request.

Common questions

Did the AG say all rescue-squad photos were improper?
A: No. The letter gave training and criminal evidence as possible official uses and said the particular purpose had not been provided.

What if the photos were placed in an autopsy file?
A: The AG said they should remain confidential as autopsy records under the office’s earlier opinions.

Did the opinion bar every public-records request for the pictures? A: No. It expressly preserved valid requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Background and statutory framework

The letter cited Reid v. Pierce County in discussing relatives’ privacy interests and possible liability for misuse of death photographs. It relied on prior AG opinions for confidentiality of autopsy records and noted EMS professional standards for rescue-squad members.

Citations and references

• Reid v. Pierce County: cited on unauthorized use of death photographs and family privacy.

Official title

Addressing concerns about the local rescue sqad taking pictures of deceased individuals at accident scenes.

Requester

The Honorable J. Todd Hardee, Darlington County Coroner

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-8-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01aug8hardee.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 8, 2001

The Honorable J. Todd Hardee
Darlington County Coroner
315 Pearl Street
Darlington, SC 29532
Dear Coroner Hardee:
Your letter of April 24, 2001 was referred to me for response. Your correspondence addressed concerns you have about the local rescue squad taking pictures of deceased individuals at accident scenes. You were not specific in your correspondence as to what reason might lie behind the rescue squad taking such pictures, or if these pictures are somehow displayed. If the pictures are taken for purposes of training, the use of such pictures could be an appropriate means of preparing emergency medical personnel for their role at the scene of a fatal accident. Furthermore, such pictures could
. also have evidentiary value and would be legitimate if taken for purposes of a potential criminal prosecution. However, if these pictures are taken for less official reasons, there are ways to address such actions. There is a growing area of the law that is expanding liability to officials and agencies for the unauthorized and gratuitous display of photographs of the deceased and unauthorized appropriation of photographs of decedents' corpses. See Reid v. Pierce County, 961 P.2d 333 (1998), Williams v. City ofMinneol~ 575 So.2d 683 (1991). As the county council provides funding for the local rescue squad, the council would be interested in any activity that could potentially place the county at risk for litigation. Such cases have recognized that relatives of a decedent have a protectable privacy interest in the improper appropriation of photographs of decedents' corpses, and that custodians of public records may be subject to tort liability for any intentional communication of photographs outside of an official agency. Additionally, local rescue squads are certified by the EMS division of the Department of Health and Environmental Control. This division has established professional standards for members of rescue squads and any behavior that deviates from these standards may be reported to the appropriate authority at the EMS division.

a~C~~ J •

PosT0FACE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable J. Todd Hardee
Page2
August 8, 2001

I
I

Finally, this Office has consistently opined that autopsy records, including photographs, are confidential under state law. See Op. AnL. Gen., March 6, 2001, Op. AnL Gen., October 27, 1981. This opinion has rested on the premise that public access to autopsy records invades the privacy of those persons having a property interest in the dead body itself and that it would be detrimental to the public interest to permit such access. While pictures taken by a rescue squad are not part of the autopsy records necessarily, since the rescue squad is normally the first responders to such a scene, any pictures the squad talces might have significant evidentiary and investigative value and has the potential to be included as part of the autopsy record. If included in the records, such pictures should remain confidential, but even if not included as part of the autopsy records, the same rationale that underlies the prohibition on disclosure of autopsy records to the public should apply to any public disclosure of pictures taken by a rescue squad. Such disclosure is prohibited because it "unreasonably invades the personal privacy ofrelatives and next ofkin." .QQ.. Any. Gen., October 27, 1981. This assertion should in no way effect a valid request ilnder the Freedom of Information Act. I hope the information provided herein proves helpful. Please contact me if you have any further questions. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position ofthe undersigned as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor published in the manner of a formal opinion.

i

I

Assistant Attorney General