Judge rules to black out King Road crime scene photos permanently 

A judge has ruled that the City of Moscow cannot publish photographs or videos from the King Road homicides without blacking out the bodies or blood of the victims. 

Idaho Second District Judge Megan Marshall issued the judgment on Laramie v. City of Moscow on Wednesday, Oct. 1. 

Karen Laramie, mother of Madison Mogen, sued the City of Moscow on Aug. 12 for unwarranted invasion of privacy from images, photos and audio released under the Idaho Public Records Act. Madison, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were the four University of Idaho students murdered by Bryan Kohberger in November of 2022.  

Following the filing of the suit, on Aug. 15, Marshall initially placed a temporary restraining order on all photos, videos and audio that depicted the inside of Madison’s bedroom. 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.    

A hearing took place over zoom on Aug. 28 where Marshall took the issue under advisement and, at the city’s suggestion, maintained the temporary restrain order. Andrew Pluskal, the attorney representing the City of Moscow, called the case a “balancing test” between competing interests of privacy and public disclosure. 

The accompanying decision identified the legal extent and legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ claims to a right of privacy based on a previous ruling from a district court in Ada County.  

“‘Family members of a deceased person’ have a right to avoid ‘public disclosure of their deceased family member’s corpse and other death-scene images,’” the decision said. 

During the hearing, Leander James, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, made a distinction between blurring, which the city had done so far, and redacting through means of black boxes. James also argued that blood was a part of the body and was neither blurred nor redacted when it should have been.  

Marshall determined that the public gains little by seeing the bodies of the deceased, blood-soaked sheets, blood spatter or other death-scene depictions. The spread of these images online would be in violation of the Ada County ruling as the plaintiffs may come upon them by accident. The court concluded that these certain investigatory records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

The decision specified, in accordance with James’ argument, that the blurring was insufficient as it allows the viewer to see the outline of the deceased persons. For individuals who continue to investigate the murders even after the criminal case is closed, Marshal stated it will have minor effect upon them, whereas it will continue to have a profound effect upon the family of the deceased persons. 

“The City may disclose the investigatory records in this matter, but must blackout any areas within the images, photographs, video, or other media that depict any portion of the decedents or their bodies and the blood immediately surrounding them.” Marshal wrote in the decision. 

Substantial interest in public records related to the criminal investigation has been demonstrated by the over 1,150 record requests made since July 23, 2025, following the completion of the criminal case at the time of judgment. 

The court found other items outlined by the plaintiff as violating their right to privacy to have insubstantial weight compared to the public’s interest to disclosure. These included audio, video, or photographs depicting, the exterior or interior of the residence with the noted exception of death-scene depictions; the personal property and items of the deceased which include containers of alcohol, underwear, ID cards and other personal items; and witnesses statements given to law enforcement officials, including audio of crying and extreme emotions.  

Marshal addressed that despite the tragedy and distressing nature of the homicide, like many law enforcement investigatory records that invade the privacy of suspects, witnesses, victims, these are precisely what IPRA affords the public and do not substantially invade the privacy of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the outlined items of personal property may appear embarrassing but do not attack the character of the deceased in a way that constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

The decision ends with the acknowledgement of the harm that the plaintiffs have suffered due to the initial disclosures, even in their blurred form, and states that they are entitled to relief. 

Joshua Reisenfeld can be reached at [email protected].