|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A South Carolina law allowing family members access to autopsy photos (and videos) of their late loved ones is being threatened by proposed legislation that would leave that question up to county coroners to decide on a case-by-case basis.
State law (§ 17-5-535) currently grants permission to view such public materials to a specific group of individuals defined as “parents of the deceased, surviving spouse, children, guardian, personal representative, next of kin, and any other person given permission or authorization to view or possess the visual images by the personal representative of the deceased’s estate.”
A bill sponsored by S.C. House minority leader Todd Rutherford seeks to restructure the process of disseminating autopsy photos and videos, potentially altering who is authorized to view them. Rutherford’s bill – H. 3041 – would strike the current code permitting access to family members and instead allow such access only “at the discretion of the coroner.” While Rutherford’s bill failed to clear the S.C. General Assembly during its recently concluded session, it is raising red flags among transparency advocates.
In 2014, the state supreme court controversially decided autopsy reports were not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Even so, family members and those with a material interest in the deceased could submit a written request to receive this information.
***
“The Supreme Court ruled that coroner’s reports were medical records not subject to disclosure under the FOIA in a case brought against the Sumter County Coroner when there was concern that the report issued by the coroner was inconsistent with events leading to the death of a person at the hands of the police,” said Jay Bender, an attorney with years of experience litigating public records access cases. “I thought the Supreme Court was wrong in its decision because it deprived the public of an opportunity to ascertain if a coroner was ruling based on the facts of the case without regard to the parties involved. In the Sumter case, it appeared that the coroner was accepting the law enforcement version of events without independent analysis.”
Bender added that limited access resulted in limited transparency, citing the case of Hampton, S.C. teenager Stephen Smith.
“This bill further erodes the ability of the public to review the performance of an elected official by giving the official the unilateral discretion to determine if material is to be made available to family members,” Bender said. “You may recall that there is concern that the autopsy of Stephen Smith, a young man found dead on a Hampton County road, did not accurately determine the cause of death. Without access to photographs, any pathologist conducting a subsequent autopsy would have no basis for comparison.”
Removing the opportunity to review autopsy records effectively removes one of the few checks and balances that apply to branches of local government and law enforcement conducting death investigations.
“I am sometimes hesitant to ascribe motive to legislators for the bills that are introduced, but this bill seems designed to shelter coroners from public scrutiny,” Bender said.
Bender’s comment is particularly interesting given that Rutherford’s ex-wife is the Richland County coroner, Naida Rutherford. FITSNews reached out to representative Rutherford for comment, but have not yet received a response.
Assuming we do hear from him, we will make his comments available to our audience.
***
***
Eric Melendez, a career law enforcement professional who found himself in the unenviable position of investigating the suspicious death of his stepson, stressed the importance of autopsy photos in the investigative process.
“They can be vital to a second opinion,” Melendez said.
Melendez explained that autopsy reports and photos – along with photos from the crime scene – can make a huge difference in a cold case investigation (or an independent review of a closed case). However, despite their investigative value, Melendez warned that in many cases family members do not need to be exposed to the disturbing content of the autopsy photos of their loved ones.
“Sometimes they are going to see what no one wants to see,” Melendez said.
Melendez’s stepson, Daniel Reed “DJ” Smith, was found dead on the railroad tracks in rural Dorchester County in 2018. The subsequent investigation into his death failed to answer many of the family’s basic questions about what may have led to his demise. Smith’s case was featured on FITSFIles – and a civil suit is making its way through the court system in pursuit of justice.
“If there are any suspicions related to the death or questions about the investigation, information shouldn’t be withheld from the family,” Melendez said.
***
RELATED | DEATH ON THE TRACKS
***
Smith’s case isn’t the only one in which autopsy photos may help family members hold those responsible for uncovering the truth accountable. Seven years after affluent entrepreneur and author Geoffrey Hammond died at his Bluffton, S.C. home on June 14, 2017, some of his family members continue searching for the answers related to the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death. Hammond’s daughter, Tara Hammond Helman, recently received autopsy photos from her father’s case after three months of requests emails and phone calls with multiple Beaufort County departments.
The photos from Hammond’s autopsy appear to yield previously undisclosed information – information that was not included in the written narrative accompanying the autopsy report – or documented in the investigative report conducted by law enforcement.
Stay tuned for more on the Hammond case in a future report…
Assuming Rutherford’s bill had become law, requests like Helman’s would be subject to unilateral dismissal. Closed cases like Daniel Reed Smith’s would lose volumes of photographic documentation of scientific evidence fundamental to uncovering the truth – while cold cases like Stephen Smith’s homicide could continue to spin out.
There are no proposed changes to state law as it pertains to autopsy photo access for persons charged with a crime related to the death, parties to a civil suit arising from the death, or their attorneys. Those individuals may view or receive autopsy photos and other records upon request. The proposed restrictions apply only to family members whose ability to view the same would be at the discretion of the county coroner.
Share your take on the proposed bill by contacting callie@fitsnews.com.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Callie Lyons is a journalist, researcher and author. Her 2007 book ‘Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof and Lethal’ was the first to cover forever chemicals and their impact on communities – a story later told in the movie ‘Dark Waters’. Her investigative work has been featured in media outlets, publications, and documentaries all over the world. Lyons also appears in ‘Citizen Sleuth’ – a 2023 documentary exploring the genre of true crime.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
8 comments
What a bizarre law for Mr Rutherford to propose! Given that a large part of his constituency has historically suffered from attacks and murders by mobs and other connected entities, why would he support such an idea? We know his ex is the current Richland County Coroner. Did she put this idea in his head. If she did, I again ask “why”?
I hope this bill does not move and eventually just fades away. Terrible idea!
I do not think that should pass because the coroners in SC do not even have to be medical examiners! What right would they have to keep the family from having these so that a professional examiner can review them? The coroners are manly here to pronounce someone deceased and to handle the death certificates. Unfortunately, in out case they have a little more influence since it was a who’s who and one said in an email she absolutely would not agree with his determination and would be there to meet with him the next day!
What do we need to do to make sure this doesn’t pass?
Thank God they are only released to immediate family members because some people are sick!!!!
Norbert, you need help.
Rutherford is a criminal defense attorney. Bet his chances at trial would improve a lot if the evidence (which is what autopsy photos are) were no longer available to law enforcement. Then he could talk to his ex wife and others about what to put in their reports…. This guy needs to go.
First FITS, I may be the only one of ALL your commenters who actually performed an autopsy, 48 of them to be exact, including three on infants.
Next FITS, your obsession with trying to take Todd Rutherford down has gone beyond strange into pathological. That bill of his is clearly not going anywhere; and this is not a slow news week or even month. So, why bother stir the pot?
But since you regaled us with some piece of useless info, here is another factoid in gratitude. Do you know what now-retired/active SC Court of Appeals Chief Judge Lockemy and now-retired/active SC Chief Justice Toal were introducing when they were both legislators in 1986?
A bill prohibiting the creation of a being that is half monkey and half human or half pig and half human or half donkey and half elephant or something of that ilk.
That bill is both amusing and ambitious and got nowhere? Why did Lockemy and Toal think someone ANYWHERE was trying to do that? And why did they think South Carolina would EVER have the scientists capable of even the first steps towards that?
Third and most seriously, though. South Carolina may be one of the few, if not the only state, which elects coroner. What is the idea there? Elected positions should be there to reflect the majority rule on contested political issues. A medical examiner’s job should be the farthest thing from politics.
The bill that is needed is one making the coroners’ positions appointed ones on the recommendation of the state’s medical association.
To SubZeroIQ- Were some or all of those autopsies done while working at the DMH? On a side note, I’m interested in what you may know about LWM, pi. He was previously employed to follow me and I’ve been beyond fearful since. Not quite sure how he was licensed given his past history. Any info you have would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, Sub Zero IQ was an Ensor Morgue, employee?
Bingo!