## Facts

- After the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School killings, the Jefferson County coroner prepared autopsy reports for the homicide victims, and autopsy reports were generally subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).
- CORA permitted a records custodian to seek a court order restricting disclosure if public inspection would cause “substantial injury to the public interest.”
- The coroner, joined by the district attorney and many victims’ family members, petitioned to restrict public inspection and disclosure of the victims’ autopsy reports, citing likely emotional trauma, morbid sensationalism, interference with community healing, and limited public benefit from detailed disclosure.
- Two newspapers intervened to oppose restriction, arguing the reports were presumptively open and disclosure would support public oversight of government response and performance.
- The parents of one perpetrator intervened regarding nondisclosure of their son’s autopsy report, raising privacy and related public-interest concerns.
- At an evidentiary hearing, family members described severe expected emotional harm from release; officials testified disclosure could hinder ongoing investigative and public-safety interests and add little to public understanding.
- The trial court broadly restricted public access to the autopsy reports and denied the newspapers’ request for in camera inspection.

## Issues

1. Whether disclosure of the autopsy reports would do “substantial injury to the public interest” under CORA, justifying restriction of access.
2. Whether the trial court erred by restricting disclosure without first conducting an in camera inspection of the reports.
3. Whether CORA required some partial disclosure of non-graphic information even if detailed portions could be withheld.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It agreed that, on this record and in this exceptional context, unrestricted disclosure of most detailed autopsy information could be restricted because it would cause substantial injury to the public interest.
- It held the trial court’s blanket restriction was overbroad because CORA’s presumption of access required consideration of partial disclosure.
- It remanded for an order allowing disclosure of limited, basic, non-graphic information (including cause and manner of death and other non-private, non-graphic details) while continuing to restrict detailed, graphic portions.
- It held CORA did not require in camera review in all cases and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the restriction request based on the evidentiary record without in camera inspection.

## Legal Principles

- Autopsy reports are public records presumptively open to inspection under CORA; disclosure exceptions are construed narrowly.
- Under CORA’s “substantial injury to the public interest” provision, courts balance the public interest in government accountability and transparency against public-interest harms from disclosure, which can include serious dignitary and privacy harms and foreseeable extreme emotional harm to survivors when shown to be significant and broadly felt.
- Restrictions on access must be tailored; when feasible, courts should order partial or redacted disclosure of information that does not implicate the harms supporting restriction.
- In camera inspection may be useful but is not categorically required; a court may resolve the request based on testimony and argument when the record adequately permits the required balancing.

## Conclusion

The court upheld restricting most detailed Columbine autopsy-report content because full disclosure would substantially injure the public interest, but required limited release of basic, non-graphic information to honor CORA’s presumption of public access and permit meaningful public oversight.


Bodelson v. Denver Publ'g Co., 5 P.3d 373 (Colo. App. 2000)