Categories
News News Blog

Journalist Sues City for Body-Cam Footage of “Taser Face”

Marc Perrusquia/Twitter

A Memphis journalist is suing the city of Memphis for access to body-camera footage from a Memphis Police Department (MPD) officer.

Newspaper veteran Marc Perrusquia teamed with the nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) in the suit filed Monday in Shelby County Chancery Court. In the suit, Perrusquia claims the city’s refusal to release the footage violates the Tennessee Public Records Act.

“The city of Memphis’ refusal to release the bodycam footage requested by our client raises serious transparency concerns,” said Paul McAdoo, the Reporters Committee’s Local Legal Initiative attorney in Tennessee. “Public access to police bodycam footage is a crucial aspect of police accountability.”

Perrusquia, who leads the Institute of Public Service Reporting at the University of Memphis, first asked for the body-cam footage in July 2020, according to the RCFP. He sought footage from three separate incidents of alleged use of excessive force by MPD officer Colin Berryhill. The officer earned the nickname “Taser Face” for multiple uses of his electroshock Taser gun, according to Perrusquia’s July 2020 story about Berryhill in The Daily Memphian.

City leaders denied Perrusquia’s request for the footage because “no responsive records exist at this time due to an administrative investigation.” According to the RCFP, this came despite the fact that the city said in a publicly released case summary that the investigation had been closed.

McAdoo, Perrusquia’s attorney, wrote to the city’s chief legal counsel, Jennifer Sink requesting the body-cam footage, the RCFP said. Sink said in a phone call that the records were exempt from disclosure because an internal MPD investigation could lead to criminal charges against Berryhill.

Perrusquia’s legal argument that there is no exemption for such adminstrative investigations and no body-camera-specific exemption apply. The suit also charges that since there’s no pending criminal action against the officer, the records aren’t exempt under state law.