Idaho Second District Judge Megan Marshall maintained a temporary restraining order on crime scene images from the King Road homicides following a hearing on Aug. 28. Marshall took the matter of to what extent the images, if any, can be released under advisement.
Karen Laramie, mother of Madison Mogen, sued the City of Moscow for unwarranted invasion of privacy from images, photos and audio released under the statute to the public interest of disclosure on Aug. 12. Madison, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were the four University of Idaho students slain by Bryan Kohberger in November of 2022.
A temporary restraining order was initially placed on all photos, videos and audio that depicted the inside of Madison’s bedroom on Aug. 15 by Marshall. While the restraining order only applied to Madison’s bedroom, the city said in a press release that images and videos of the other victims would also be withheld.
Laramie filed the suit on Aug. 12 and was later joined on the case by Stacy Chapin, Jim Chapin and Maizie Chapin, the mother, father and sister of Ethan, respectively.
Leander James, the attorney representing the two families, argued that his clients qualified for protection from harassment as a result of the spread of the material.
“What is more of an invasion here … than to disseminate death scene images of their children worldwide?” James said.
James claimed that the city’s sworn testimony to redact all bodies was “factually inaccurate.” His case made a distinction between blurring, which the city had done so far, and redacting through means of black boxes. The case also argued that blood was a part of the body and was neither blurred nor redacted.
James also addressed the family’s frustration toward the true crime industry, which played a significant role in recirculating the released images and video into the families’ view.
Andrew Pluskal, an attorney representing the City of Moscow, asserted the case was a “balancing test” between competing interests of privacy and the statute of public disclosure. Pluskal explained the city’s duty to release investigative materials upon request. If they were to bar all release of images, Pluskal said that the city might end up in the court room again when sued by someone who claimed that the material is essential.
Pluskal responded to the claims of blurring versus black bars as trivial distinction and said he did not feel it was accurate to claim that blood was a part of the body.
The defense also argued for a narrow definition of “victim,” which included only the deceased. Marshall made no verdict of whether the families constituted as victims of privacy invasion but reached the conclusion that if the court found the families in the suit to have an interest in privacy, it would also extend to the families not included in the suit.
James made a final comment about the “balancing test,” saying that detailed descriptions of the death scene were already published and would satisfy the statute. The images therefore were an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for both the deceased and immediate family members.
James also said that his clients have no intention of victimizing the Moscow Police Department and remain grateful for their work.
Joshua Reisenfeld can be reached at [email protected].