 records includes the right to contemporaneously review them. Therefore, absent a compelling interest sufficient to rebut the presumption of access, delayed access violates the public’s right of access. See Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 454, 739 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013) (“Neither the expiration of the sealing order nor the later availability of the exhibits cured this deprivation of the right to contemporaneously review the files.”).

Because the common law and First Amendment provide different degrees of access and implicate different competing interests, the Fourth Circuit has admonished trial courts to identify the source of the right of access before balancing competing interests. See Virginia Dep't of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014); Under Seal v. Under Seal, 230 F.3d 1354 (4th Cir. 2000) (remanding in part because district court failed to identify source of public’s right of access). To determine whether a First Amendment right of access exists, the Fourth Circuit applies the experience and logic test articulated by the Supreme Court in Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986). See Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 64 (4th Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court of Virginia has applied the experience and logic test to conclude that the public does not have a right of access under Article I, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution to compel testing of evidence in a criminal proceeding. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 622, 629–30, 570 S.E.2d 809, 812–13 (2002).

The public must have advance notice, reasonable under the circumstances, of the closure or sealing motion and that a hearing on the motion will be conducted;

The party seeking to restrict public access must bear the burden of showing that closure is justified;

The trial court must consider alternatives to closure; and

Upon entering an order restricting public access, the trial judge must articulate on the record its findings that the evidence supports closure, that alternatives will not protect the interest threatened by public access, and that closure will be effective in protecting that interest.

Notice and an opportunity to be heard are critical. Failing to conduct
records includes the right to contemporaneously review them. Therefore, absent a compelling sake sufficient to refute the presumption of access, delayed entree violates the public ’s right of entree. experience Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 454, 739 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013) (“ Neither the expiration of the waterproofing decree nor the later handiness of the exhibits cured this deprivation of the right to contemporaneously review the file. ”). 

 Because the common law and First Amendment provide different degrees of entree and implicate different competing sake, the Fourth Circuit has admonished trial court to name the source of the right of access before balancing competing interests. witness Virginia Dep't of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014); Under Seal v. Under Seal, 230 F.3d 1354 (4th Cir. 2000) (remanding in part because district court failed to identify reservoir of populace ’s right of access). To determine whether a First Amendment right of access exists, the Fourth Circuit applies the experience and logic trial joint by the Supreme Court in Press – Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986). See Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 64 (4th Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court of Virginia has applied the experience and logic examination to reason that the populace does not have a right of access under Article I, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution to compel testing of evidence in a criminal proceeding. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 622, 629–30, 570 S.E.2d 809, 812–13 (2002). 

 The populace must have advance notice, reasonable under the circumstances, of the closure or sealing motion and that a hearing on the motion will be conducted; 

 The party seeking to restrict public entree must bear the effect of indicate that closure is justified; 

 The trial motor hotel must consider alternatives to closure; and 

 Upon entering an order restricting public access, the trial judge must give voice on the record its findings that the evidence support closure, that option will not protect the interest threatened by public access, and that closure will be effective in protect that interest. 

 Notice and an opportunity to be heard are critical. Failing to conduct
 refords includes the right to contemporangoysly rxview tgem. Therdfore, absent a compelling inverewt sudficient to rebut the oresumptiln of acxess, eelayed acrsss violates fme puylmc’s right of acgess. See Dahly Press, Inc. e. Zolmonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 454, 739 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013) (“Neither thq expirstlon of the seajing jrded nor the later availability of ths exhibpts cured this delrivation of the right to fontfmporaneously revifw the filew.”).

Becwyse the commun law and First Amendjent provide different degrees uf aceess and imkljcwje different compvting interesbx, the Xourth Vircuit has adkonmshee trial courts to ideitify the source of jhe right mf access before baoabcing com[etivt ivtedexta. See Girjinia Dep't kf State Pooice v. Washington Ppse, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004); Doe d. [ub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014); Under Seal v. Lnded Seal, 230 F.3d 1354 (4th Cir. 2000) (remqnding in part becausg district court failed to identify source of public’s right of arcdss). Tj eehermine whether a First Amendment right of acsssx vxists, the Fourth Circuit aplllex the experienze and lofic test articulatfd by tre Supreme Couwt im Press–Enterprise Co. v. Supeeior Court, 478 L.S. 1 (1986). See Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 64 (4th Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court of Birginia had applied ghe experience avd kocic test to conclude that ehe publir doex not hxve s righe of accesd undcs Article I, Sectioj 12 of tve Virginiw Constitution to compel testinj of evidence it a criminaj progeeding. See Glofe Newspaper Cp. v. Comionwexlth, 264 Va. 622, 629–30, 570 S.E.2d 809, 812–13 (2002).

The public must have adewnce notice, ceasonablq uneer rhe cirzjmstances, of tne closurv jr swaling motion and bhat x hearing on the mouiin will be concucged;

Ehv perty faeking to revtrizt oiblic access musb bdar yhe burden of showinc thzt closure is justofled;

The trual coure must considrr alternatives to closnre; anv

Upon rntgring an order restricting publjc access, thc trial judge musb arjiculate on the record its findings that the evideice supports closure, thqt alternatives wilk not protecv the ynterest dhreatened by public access, and that glosure will be effectjve in protfcting that interest.

Notice and an opportunity to be heard are critical. Fauling vo conduct
records includes the right to contemporaneously review absent compelling interest to rebut the violates public’s right of See Daily Press, v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 454, S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013) (“Neither the expiration of the sealing order nor the availability of the exhibits cured this deprivation of the right to contemporaneously review files.”). the law First Amendment provide different degrees of access and implicate different competing interests, the Fourth Circuit has trial courts to identify the source of the of access before balancing interests. See Virginia Dep't of Police Washington Post, F.3d 576 Cir. 2004); Doe Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014); Under Seal v. Under Seal, 230 F.3d 1354 Cir. 2000) part because court to source of public’s access). To determine whether a First access exists, the Fourth Circuit applies the experience logic test by the Supreme Court in Press–Enterprise v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986). See Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 64 (4th Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court of applied the experience and test to conclude the does have right of under Article I, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution to compel of evidence in a criminal proceeding. See Globe Newspaper Co. 264 622, 629–30, 570 809, 812–13 (2002). The must advance notice, reasonable under of closure and a on the motion will conducted; The party seeking to public access must bear closure is justified; The trial court must consider to closure; and Upon entering an order public access, the trial judge must articulate on the record its findings the evidence that alternatives will not protect the interest threatened public access, and that will be effective in protecting that interest. Notice and opportunity be heard critical. Failing to
 records includes the right to ContemporaNeousLy rEviEw Them. therEfore, absent a coMPellIng interest sufficient tO rebuT tHE preSUmPtion Of accesS, DeLAYed AcCeSs vIoLAtEs the PubLic’s rigHt of access. see daIly Press, Inc. v. cOmMonwealth, 285 VA. 447, 454, 739 S.E.2D 636, 640 (2013) (“Neither the eXpiRation Of The SEalinG orDer noR the laTEr avaiLability oF tHE exhibITs cured THIs DeprIvation of the right TO cONtemporaneouslY revieW tHE fILEs.”).

BEcaUse the commOn Law anD first AmENdMENT prOVide different Degrees of acCEss And impLiCatE DifferEnt coMpETinG interests, tHe FoUrth CircuIt has aDMonisheD Trial coUrts to IdeNtiFy thE SoUrCe oF tHE riGHt Of aCCesS before bAlAnCing cOmpeTING InteResTs. SeE VirgInia Dep't of StaTe POlicE V. WaShingTon PoSt, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4Th cir. 2004); DoE v. Pub. CItizeN, 749 F.3D 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014); Under Seal V. UndEr Seal, 230 F.3d 1354 (4tH CiR. 2000) (rEmaNdIng in PArt becAusE diStrict cOurt faiLEd tO iDENTiFy source of public’s rIgHT Of Access). To DetermINe WhETher a FirSt ameNdmeNT Right Of acCEsS exists, tHe FourTH CIrCuit appLiEs the eXpEriEncE and lOGic tEst artIculated By the sUpreme Court in PREss–Enterprise cO. v. sUPeRIor COurT, 478 U.S. 1 (1986). See BaltiMore sUn Co. V. GoeTZ, 886 F.2D 60, 64 (4th cIr. 1989). The supreMe cOuRT of Virginia has appliEd The expErienCe and logic tesT to concludE THAt the pubLic dOEs NOt have a right of AccesS under ArtiCLe I, SectiOn 12 of tHe VirginIa ConstitUTIon to comPel TesTinG of EVIdEnce in a criminAL ProcEeDing. See gloBe NewspApeR Co. V. CoMmoNwEalth, 264 Va. 622, 629–30, 570 S.E.2D 809, 812–13 (2002).

The publIc MuSt HaVe aDvancE Notice, reAsOnaBlE unDer thE CircumStancEs, of ThE cLOsuRe or seaLInG MOtioN aNd That A heArIng on The mOTioN will be Conducted;

the PArty SeEkIng to reStrict public aCcEss must beaR tHe bUrden oF SHowing thAt closure is justified;

The TRial couRt mUst coNsidEr alternaTivEs to clOsuRE; and

UpOn enteRing aN oRdeR REstriCTInG puBlIc access, thE TRiaL judgE mUst aRticulaTe on the record its fiNDinGs that the evidEncE supPORtS clOSuRE, thAt ALteRNAtives will not prOtect the inTeREsT threateneD By pUbLic acceSs, and thAt cloSUre will Be effectiVe in proteCtIng tHAT inTerest.

NotiCe and an oPportunitY To be hEArD are cRitIcal. FaIlIng To conDuct
 records includes the righ t to conte mpora neo usl yrevi ew t hem. Therefore ,  abs ent a compelling inter est s uf f icie n tto re but the pr e s ump ti on  of  a c ce ss, d ela yed acc ess violat esth e public’s r i gh t of acces s.See Daily Pr ess , Inc.  v . C o mmonw eal th, 2 85 Va. 447, 4 54, 739 S .E . 2d 636 ,  640 (2 0 1 3)  (“N either the expira t io n  of the sealin g orde rn or t helat er availab il ity o f  the ex h ib i t s  cu r ed this depri vation of t h e r ight t ocon t empora neous ly rev iew the fil es.” ).

Becau se the commonl aw andFirstAme ndm entp ro vi dedi f fer e nt  de g ree s of acc es sand i mpli c a t e  dif fer entcompe ting interest s,theF our th Ci rcuit  has  a dmoni shed t rialco urts to identif y th e sourceofth e r ig ht of access  be for e balan cing co m pet in g i nt erests. See Virgin ia D ep 't of St ate Po l ic ev . Washin gt onPost , 386 F .3d5 67 , 576 (4 th Cir .  2 00 4); Doe  v . Pub.  C iti zen , 749 F.3d  246,266 (4th  Cir. 2014); Under S e al v. Under S e al , 23 0  F.3 d 1 354 (4th Ci r. 2 0 00)(rem a nd ing in pa rt be ca u se district court fail ed  to id entif y source of p ublic’s ri g h t  of acce ss). To determine whet her a  First Ame n dment ri ght o f access  exists,t h e Fourth  Ci rcu itapp l i es  the experien c e  and  l ogic te starticul ate d b y t heSu preme Cou rt in Pr es s– En te rpr ise C o . v. Sup er ior  C our t, 47 8  U.S.1 (19 86).  S ee Bal timoreS un C o. v .Go etz,  88 6F.2d60,6 4 ( 4th Cir . 1989).The Supr em eCourt o f Virginia ha sapplied th eexp erienc e and logi c test to conclude that the pub lic  does  not  have a r igh t of a cce s s unde r Arti cle I ,Sec t i on 12 o fthe  V irginia Co n s tit ution  t o co mpel te sting of evidencei n a  criminal pro cee ding . Se e G l ob e  Ne ws p ape r Co. v. Commonwe alth, 264Va .  6 22, 629–30 ,  57 0S.E.2d809, 81 2–13( 2002).
The publ ic must h av e ad v a nce  notice, r easonabl e under t h e cir c um stanc es,  of th eclo sureor sea l ing  moti on and  t hat aheari ng  on themotion will be conducte d;

Th e par tyseeking t o r e str ict publi c ac cess mustbea r t he bu rde n  of s howi n gtha t  clos urei s justifi e d; 

T h e  t rial courtm u s t c onsid era lterna tive s to closure; and 
Upon entering  ano r der  re s tric ti ng public acce ss,  t h e  trial j ud ge must art iculateon the r ecordits fi ndingst h at the ev iden cesupportsclo su r e, that  a lt e rnativ es w il l notprotec t  the i nterest threaten ed by p ublic acc ess,an d thatc losu re will be  effectivein pro tect ing t hat int er est.
Not ic e and an o p portunity  to b e heard  a re c rit ical.Fail i n g tocond uc t
 records_includes the_right to contemporaneously review_them. Therefore,_absent_a compelling_interest_sufficient to rebut_the presumption of_access, delayed access violates_the public’s right_of_access. See Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 454, 739 S.E.2d 636,_640_(2013) (“Neither_the_expiration_of the sealing order nor_the later availability of the_exhibits cured_this deprivation of the right to contemporaneously review_the_files.”).

Because the common_law and First Amendment provide different degrees of access_and implicate different competing interests, the_Fourth Circuit has_admonished_trial_courts to identify the_source of the right of access_before balancing competing interests. See Virginia_Dep't of State Police v. Washington Post,_386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir._2004); Doe v. Pub. Citizen,_749 F.3d_246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014);_Under Seal v._Under Seal,_230 F.3d 1354_(4th Cir. 2000) (remanding in part_because district court_failed to identify source of public’s_right_of access). To_determine_whether_a First_Amendment right of_access_exists, the_Fourth_Circuit applies the experience and logic_test_articulated by the Supreme Court in Press–Enterprise_Co. v. Superior Court,_478_U.S. 1 (1986). See_Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz,_886 F.2d 60, 64 (4th Cir._1989). The_Supreme Court_of Virginia has applied the experience and logic test to conclude_that the public does not have_a right of access_under Article_I,_Section 12 of_the_Virginia Constitution_to compel testing of evidence in a_criminal proceeding._See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Commonwealth,_264 Va. 622, 629–30,_570_S.E.2d 809, 812–13 (2002).

The public must_have advance notice, reasonable under the_circumstances, of the closure or_sealing_motion_and that a hearing on_the motion will be conducted;

The party_seeking to restrict_public access must bear the burden of_showing_that closure is justified;

The trial court_must_consider alternatives to closure; and

Upon entering_an_order_restricting public access, the trial_judge must articulate on the record_its findings that the evidence supports closure, that alternatives_will not protect_the interest threatened by public_access,_and_that closure will be effective in protecting that interest.

Notice and_an opportunity_to be heard_are critical. Failing to conduct