The Georgia Open Records Act is even more explicit. If the judge with jurisdiction over a case does not approve public inspection of the evidence, the person responsible for the maintenance of the evidence, including a district attorney, is then required by the law to make available a reproduction or copy.
Really? Well, before we get to that, what about a couple of other angles on the issue?
A Typical Joe handles the political aspect. It appears Barr's recent resurgence of common sense libetarianism once again takes a back seat when the sex is involved.
Sara (with local PD Audacity commenting) handles the concept of federal pre-emption. A concept that's been settled for only about 140 years.
But what about Georgia Open Records statutes? Is it as simple as Bob Barr states? Via the tip line, Georgia Unannotated Code 50-18-72:
(a) Public disclosure shall not be required for records that are: (1) Specifically required by the federal government to be kept confidential; (2) Medical or veterinary records and similar files, the disclosure of which would be an invasion of personal privacy.
Number 2 might be argued but number 1 is pretty clear.
If there are other legal minds that disagree, the tip line and the comments section are wide open.