OCEAN CITY — The town last week formally answered a suit filed last month in Worcester County Circuit Court by a media outlet seeking to force the police department to release the name of a 17-year-old drowning victim, pointing out a section in the law that protects it and therefore seeking a dismissal.
On June 13, a 17-year-old male from Parkville, Md. drowned in the ocean at 92nd Street, marking the second time in less than two weeks a teen visiting the resort was lost in the sea. The Ocean City Police Department did not release the victim’s name, citing a request for privacy from the teen’s family. Most local media outlets, including The Dispatch, did not pursue the issue further, respecting the family’s wishes and deciding instead releasing the victim’s name would not serve any public purpose or contribute to the newsworthiness of the story.
Following the incident, the Daily Times and its parent Gannett Company Inc. submitted a Public Information Act (PIA) request to the OCPD seeking the victim’s name, but that was denied by the department, which stood behind the wishes of the family not to release the information. The Daily Times and Gannett then filed a second PIA request asking the resort to point out where in the law a special exception based on privacy was included.
Rebuffed again, the Daily Times in September filed suit in Worcester County Circuit Court against the Mayor and Council and the police department seeking to force the resort to release the victim’s name. By that point, the media outlet’s quest became less about the release of the individual drowning victim’s name and more about the town’s ability to pick and choose what information it chooses to release or withhold, according to an editorial published on the matter.
“This lawsuit is not merely about one name,” wrote Delmarva Media Group Executive Editor Michael Kilian in the editorial published recently. “It is about the vital principle that government officials uphold the law. In the end, it is neither legal nor fair for Ocean City officials to withhold one name, no matter how good their intentions, and release so many others as the law requires.”
Last week, the town, through its attorneys, filed a formal answer to the suit, addressing each allegation line by line and paragraph by paragraph. In its answer, the town asserts its police department is immune from lawsuits.
“In further response, the Ocean City Police Department is not a legal entity with the capacity to be sued or bring suit,” the town’s formal answer reads.
In its broader “affirmative defenses” section, the formal answer points to a section in the statute that appears to defend its police departments decision to respect the family’s request and not release the victim’s name.
“The defendants properly withheld such information constituting that an ‘unwarranted invasion of privacy of a person of interest’ would result,” the answer reads. “The plaintiff’s request for disclosure of such public records ‘constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’ as an exception under the statute.”
After the detailed line-by-line, paragraph-by-paragraph answer, the town asked the Circuit Court to dismiss the case in its entirety.
“Wherefore, having fully answered the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint, defendants pray that all of the claims asserted therein be dismissed in their entirety, judgment be entered in defendants’ favor with prejudice, costs be awarded to defendants, and this Honorable Court award such other and further relief as it deems appropriate,” the answer reads.
However, the Daily Times and Gannett continue to assert the town and the OCPD erred when withholding the victim’s name at the request of the family.
“There is no general exception for privacy or for sparing anyone’s feelings,” Killian wrote in the editorial. “Because in the end, those would be judgment calls without a basis in law or logic. If Ocean City had released the young man’s name at the time of the drowning, we wouldn’t be here right now. It is unfortunately necessary that we pursue this case, in expectation that government officials will realize that following the law is what their duty requires.”
The issue has certainly been a polarizing one in the community with many chastising the media outlet for pursuing the victim’s name. However, there is likely more at stake in the case should it ever make it to trial. The larger issue for Gannett and other media outlets is whether the town and its police department, or any government entity for that matter, can pick and choose what information it decides to disseminate to the public.
In its lawsuit, if successful, Gannett is asking the court to order the town to reimburse the company for legal expenses incurred in this litigation.