Nearly three weeks after Franklin County Deputy Sheriff Nicholas Palmier shot and killed Jesse Beshaw, an unarmed 29-year-old from Winooski, the public finally has the opportunity to see what happened. For weeks, law enforcement agencies and the county prosecutor’s office refused to release any footage related to the shooting, citing the “ongoing investigation” exception to Vermont’s Public Records Act.

While some circumstances may allow for withholding police body or cruiser cam footage, those circumstances were not present in this case. Vermont officials’ decision to withhold the videos violated the Public Records Act and unnecessarily undermined the public’s trust.

Vermont’s Public Records Act requires free and open examination of government records and is liberally construed in favor of disclosure. All records dealing with the investigation of crime must be disclosed unless any of six specific exceptions applies. Here, law enforcement claimed releasing the videos would (1) interfere with enforcement proceedings and (2) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial. Both of these justifications were plainly ludicrous and bear no relationship to the facts of the case.

To be clear, it is highly unlikely that any of the Public Records Act’s exceptions would ever justify withholding footage of a police shooting or other use of force. And a quick analysis of this case shows how the claims of law enforcement officials that release would jeopardize an “ongoing investigation” simply do not hold water.First, after a suspect is publicly identified and eyewitnesses are interviewed, the release of body camera footage cannot interfere with an investigation. The purpose of the “interference” exception is largely to prevent suspects from being alerted that they are under investigation or receiving information about police evidence prior to being interviewed. Withholding videos can also potentially prevent eyewitness memory from being altered. When these two instances do not apply, as in this case, the exception cannot justify withholding police footage. Palmier obviously knew he was under investigation, was undoubtedly interviewed shortly after the shooting, and as far as we know was the sole eyewitness to the shooting.

Second, while the “fair trial” exception may protect those charged with a crime from pre-judgment by potential jurors, this interest does not outweigh the public’s critical need to engage in oversight of how its police are using force. Besides, even if a potential juror could be prejudiced by viewing police footage, courts have ample tools to prevent prejudice among jurors. In fact, courts already deal with public bystander videos that come out before court proceedings — and screen for potential prejudice through the jury selection process or address it through a change of venue.

It is telling that the state police claimed the “fair trial” exception to withhold the videos, but proceeded to make countless statements characterizing what the videos showed alongside information from other ongoing investigations. In the least, we should be able to expect law enforcement officers to practice what they preach.

Unfortunately, this situation will undoubtedly arise again, but there is a better way. Smart police leaders understand that timely disclosure builds public trust in the institution of policing. On the same day Mr. Beshaw was killed, a Tulsa police officer shot and killed the unarmed Terence Crutcher. The Tulsa PD released video of the shooting only three days later, out of a commitment to “full transparency and disclosure.” There were no protests and few questions about what was going on behind closed doors.

The ACLU hopes Vermont’s law enforcement community will see not only the legal problems of body cam non-disclosure, but also the community-relations problem caused by protracted and unnecessary delays. If the public is to trust the police, the police must trust the public’s intelligence and operate with greater transparency. If nothing else, the police must stop justifying non-disclosure where they have no basis to do so.

This op-ed was authored by ACLU of Vermont Staff Attorney Jay Diaz and appeared in the Oct. 12, 2016 edition of VTDigger, available at http://vtdigger.org/2016/10/12/jay-diaz-timely-disclosure-greater-transp...