@NCCapitol

Bill would force NC auditor to share more with law enforcement

Senate Bill 80 is meant to aid criminal prosecutions that start out as audits, and it removes some of the elected state auditor's ability to withhold information.
Posted 2023-04-04T16:42:33+00:00 - Updated 2023-04-04T17:03:25+00:00

A bill moving at the North Carolina General Assembly would make it easier for law enforcement to lay hands on the state auditor’s internal files.

Senate Bill 80 is meant to aid criminal prosecutions that start out as audits, and it removes some of the elected state auditor’s ability to withhold information. It cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, albeit with some discussion of more changes to come.

State Auditor Beth Wood asked for different language in a key section of the bill, and Sen. Danny Britt, the bill’s sponsor, seemed amenable to at least some changes, as did the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys, which requested the underlying bill.

Wood said she’s concerned the bill as written “creates an avenue” for any organization, not just law enforcement, to access working papers from an audit and highlight suspicions that ultimately weren’t backed up by evidence.

“People don’t need to be bringing that up … without saying, 'this never got substantiated,'” Wood said.

The bill lays out a procedure for “authorized representatives of the state and federal government” seeking records in connection with an official civil or criminal investigation. The auditor could only withhold information by arguing that state or federal law, including the federal Whistleblower Protection Act, forbids disclosure.

Law enforcement could then try to force release by taking the matter before a superior court judge.

The bill once had language forbidding the auditor from making “any extrajudicial statements that have a likelihood of prejudicing a criminal investigation,” a nod to law enforcement concerned that some of Wood’s press statements, particularly in smaller communities where her office has uncovered fiscal problems, might pollute local jury pools.

This language has been dropped, though, and isn’t in the bill that’s moving forward.

Credits