Courts cannot seal evidence from the public simply because a party asks them to. In Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge, No. 24-1945 (4th Cir. Sept. 19, 2025), the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion ordering the unsealing of body camera and video footage from a police shooting that a federal district court had kept hidden from public view for years. The decision is a forceful restatement of the public’s First Amendment right of access to judicial records — and a warning to courts and litigants that sealing orders require far more than conclusory assertions and consent motions.
The Shooting and the Lawsuit
The case arose from a 2019 search warrant execution in North Carolina that went badly wrong. Clarence Belton, a Gastonia police officer, and Heather Loveridge, a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer, were part of a team executing a warrant at a home where the suspect was believed to be trafficking methamphetamine. During the entry, Belton and other officers encountered a woman pointing a gun at them. Shots were fired. Belton fell to the ground — and Loveridge then shot him at least ten times. Belton survived but sustained serious injuries that ended his law enforcement career.
Belton sued Loveridge for excessive force, assault and battery, and other claims. During litigation, both parties filed video and body camera footage of the shooting in connection with summary judgment briefing. Both sides then moved to seal the footage — with each consenting to the other’s request. The district court granted the motions without meaningful analysis, and the footage remained sealed.
WBTV’s Fight for Access
Charlotte television station WBTV, which had covered the shooting, moved to intervene in the case and unseal the video. Belton himself reversed course and joined the motion to unseal. Loveridge opposed, arguing that releasing the footage would threaten her right to a fair trial. The district court denied WBTV’s motions on all fronts, finding that neither the common law nor the First Amendment gave the station a right to the footage — and adding that WBTV had not shown a sufficiently strong public interest to justify unsealing.
The Fourth Circuit’s Ruling
The Fourth Circuit reversed. While it affirmed the denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene (because the district court lacked jurisdiction due to a pending appeal), the court treated WBTV’s appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus — an extraordinary remedy that the Fourth Circuit has recognized as appropriate for protecting First Amendment access rights.
On the merits, the court held that the video exhibits were plainly subject to the First Amendment right of access. Exhibits filed in support of summary judgment motions have historically been open to the press and public, and public access plays a significant role in the functioning of the judicial process. This right can only be overcome in unusual circumstances, and the burden falls on the party seeking to maintain the seal — not on the media or public seeking access.
Loveridge’s fair-trial argument failed because she offered nothing beyond conclusory assertions that publicity might prejudice her. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that the First Amendment right of access cannot be overcome by vague concerns or summary conclusions. Loveridge never addressed how unsealing the footage would specifically harm her right to a fair trial, particularly given that both parties had already described the shooting in detail in public court filings and that the events had already been covered in the news.
The court also rejected the district court’s suggestion that WBTV needed to demonstrate some threshold level of “monumental public interest” before it could assert a right of access. The First Amendment right attaches to judicial records regardless of whether a media outlet can prove the public is currently interested in them. And even if fair-trial concerns carried weight, the court noted that voir dire — questioning potential jurors about their exposure to pretrial publicity — is the preferred and readily available alternative to sealing.
Why This Matters for Criminal and Civil Cases in North Carolina
Although Gray Media v. Loveridge arose in a civil case, the principles apply with equal force in federal criminal cases. Sealing orders are common in both civil and criminal litigation, and courts sometimes grant them reflexively — especially when both parties consent. This decision makes clear that consent between the parties is not enough. Courts in the Fourth Circuit must independently evaluate whether sealing is justified, whether the order is narrowly tailored, and whether less drastic alternatives exist.
For defendants in criminal cases, the case is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the ruling reinforces that the public has a strong right to see evidence filed in court proceedings — which can serve as a check on government overreach and prosecutorial misconduct. On the other hand, defendants who seek to keep sensitive evidence under seal will need to provide specific, supported reasons rather than general assertions about prejudice. And for anyone involved in high-profile cases — particularly those involving law enforcement use of force or criminal investigations — the decision underscores that video evidence filed with the court will almost certainly become public.
Contact The Chetson Firm
If you are facing criminal charges in federal or state court and have questions about how evidence, discovery, or pretrial publicity may affect your case, an experienced defense attorney can help you navigate these issues. Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law with extensive experience in both the federal courts of North Carolina and the Fourth Circuit. Contact The Chetson Firm to discuss your case.