A Maryland court has ruled that Terry Proctor, Sr. can access records related to the death of his son, Terry Proctor, Jr., who was killed in a state correctional facility. This decision highlights the importance of public access to information under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA), particularly in cases involving fatalities in state custody.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued its opinion on May 12, 2026, affirming a lower court's ruling that ordered the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (the Department) to disclose specific records related to the incident. The case, filed under docket number 2295/24, stems from a request made by Proctor, Sr. for records concerning the circumstances surrounding his son's death.

The ruling is significant as it reinforces the principle that government entities cannot unilaterally decide who qualifies as a “person in interest” when it comes to public records. The court emphasized that allowing such discretion could undermine the transparency intended by the MPIA.

Background

The dispute began after Terry Proctor, Jr. was fatally stabbed by another inmate at Dorsey Run Correctional Institute on December 14, 2020. Proctor, Jr. was just months away from release when he was attacked while asleep. Following the incident, the Department conducted an investigation and gathered various records, including surveillance footage of the attack.

On September 29, 2023, Terry Proctor, Sr., acting as the personal representative of his son’s estate, submitted a request to the Department under the MPIA for access to records related to his son's death. He sought comprehensive documentation, including incident reports, investigative records, and video footage of the incident. However, the Department denied his request, citing various exemptions under the MPIA.

Frustrated by the lack of response, Proctor, Sr. filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County seeking a declaratory judgment to compel the Department to release the requested records. The court held a hearing and ultimately ordered the Department to produce two key items: a surveillance video of the incident and the Independent Investigations Division (IID) records related to the employees' response.

The Ruling

The Court of Special Appeals ruled in favor of Proctor, Sr., affirming the lower court's decision. Judge Michele D. Hotten authored the opinion, stating, "Allowing the government to unilaterally define whether an individual qualifies as a 'person in interest' would grant it the power to deny disclosure whenever it sees fit, undermining the very purpose of statutory oversight." This statement underscores the court's commitment to ensuring transparency in government operations.

The court found that Proctor, Sr. qualified as a “person in interest” under the MPIA because he was the personal representative of the estate of Proctor, Jr., who was the subject of the records. The ruling emphasized that the government has the burden of proving why nondisclosure is warranted and that generalized concerns about privacy or security do not suffice.

In addressing the Department's arguments, the court concluded that the surveillance video did not fall under the investigatory records exemption as claimed by the Department. The court noted that concerns about revealing security information could be mitigated through redaction, allowing for the release of the video without compromising institutional security.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for public access to records under the MPIA. It reinforces the notion that individuals have the right to access information concerning government operations, especially in cases involving fatalities in state custody. The court's decision clarifies that the government must provide a compelling justification for withholding records and cannot simply invoke privacy or security concerns without substantial evidence.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving requests for public records, particularly in sensitive situations like deaths in correctional facilities. It emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in government actions, ensuring that families of victims have access to information that may be crucial for understanding the circumstances surrounding their loved ones' deaths.

What's Next

The Department can appeal the ruling to the Maryland Court of Appeals, but it remains to be seen whether they will pursue further legal action. Meanwhile, the related case involving the criminal proceedings against the inmate responsible for Proctor, Jr.'s death continues, as the defendant has filed an appeal regarding his conviction.