DGO upholds redactions in appealed audio/video; in‑camera review found redactions justified

A DGO continuation hearing reviewing previously redacted audio and video recordings concluded with the director finding the redactions appropriate and denying the appeal.

Petitioners had challenged redactions applied to several short portions of audio/video files. Records technicians and custodians explained redaction work: names, addresses, phone numbers and other personally identifying information were removed and, in limited cases, small additional context was muted to avoid revealing identities. The attorney for the respondent and the records officer provided declarations and explained technical constraints of audio redaction.

Director Lonnie Pearson conducted an in‑camera review of the flagged portions and observed that redactions, while not always surgically precise, were applied consistently to remove personally identifying information. "Based on my in camera review... I did not observe anything, any redactions that were not obvious," Pearson said. He found no indication the redactions concealed substantive information meant for public disclosure and denied the appeal. As with other matters, he will issue a written decision within seven business days and either party retains the right to appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.

The ruling signals that DGO will accept practical limits of audio/video redaction where the custodian has shown intent to remove PII and provided the record for in‑camera inspection.