Title: In re Sealed Documents

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Sealed Documents  (2001-103); 172 Vt. 152; 772 A.2d 518

[Filed 23-Mar-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision  before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, 
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that  corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 2001-103

In re Sealed Documents	                      Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Orange Circuit

March Term, 2001

M. Patricia Zimmerman, J.

       Philip H. White and Kathleen B. O'Neill of Wilson & White, P.C.,
  Montpelier, and Robert B.  Hemley and Rebecca C. Raskin of Gravel & Shea,
  Burlington, for Appellants.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and John Treadwell and Stephanie
  Ilberg, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for State of Vermont.

       Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General, and N. William Delker, Senior
  Assistant Attorney General, Concord, New Hampshire, for State of New
  Hampshire.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Gibson, J.
  (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       SKOGLUND, J.   Appellants the Associated Press, The Herald
  Association, d/b/a The Rutland  Herald, Times Argus Association d/b/a The
  Times Argus, and Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc., d/b/a  WCAX/WPTZ appeal
  from a district court order denying a motion to unseal ten search warrants
  and  related materials involving searches of the persons and the residences
  of Robert Tulloch and James Parker  in Chelsea, Vermont.  Appellants
  contend they are entitled to examine the subject documents under  Vermont
  statutory law - specifically 4 V.S.A. § 693 providing for public 

  

  inspection and examination of  court records - as well as under the common
  law, and the First Amendment.  As explained more fully  below, we conclude
  that appellants have a presumptive right of access under the statute, which
  may be  overcome only through a specific showing of substantial harm to
  public or private interests.  To afford the  trial court a reasonable
  opportunity to render a decision supported by fact-specific findings under
  the  standards and procedures described herein, we remand for further
  proceedings.

                                     I.

       The material facts are undisputed.  On January 27, 2001, the police
  discovered the deceased  bodies of Half and Susanne Zantop in their
  Hanover, New Hampshire home.  Autopsies revealed  that both  deaths were
  homicides.  The following day, a New Hampshire district court judge
  approved an application  for a search warrant for the Zantop residence, and
  granted a motion to seal the warrant, warrant  application, supporting
  affidavit, and motion.  

       Three weeks later, on February 16, the New Hampshire court issued
  arrest warrants for Robert  Tulloch and James Parker,  residents of
  Chelsea, Vermont,  in connection with the homicides. On the same  day, the
  Vermont Attorney General's Office applied for four search warrants, based
  upon information  provided by New Hampshire law enforcement authorities,
  and simultaneously moved to seal the application,  warrant, supporting
  affidavits, and inventory of items seized.  The trial court (Judge Manley)
  issued the  search warrants and granted the State's motion to seal.  The
  warrants were executed and returned, together  with inventories of items
  seized.  

       The following day, February 17,  the Vermont Attorney General's Office
  applied for five additional  search warrants, and moved to seal the
  warrant, supporting affidavits, and inventories.  Judge Manley issued  the
  warrants and granted the State's motion.  The warrants were executed and 

  

  returned, together with  inventories of items seized.   

       On February 19, the two suspects, Parker and Tulloch, were arrested in
  Indiana.  Both have since  been returned to New Hampshire, where they
  remain incarcerated.  Both have been charged with two  counts of
  first-degree murder, although neither has yet been indicted by the grand
  jury. 

       On February 23,  the New Hampshire district court issued an order
  requiring the release of certain  previously sealed information in the New
  Hampshire arrest and search warrant applications.  The court's  ruling is
  pending on appeal.	

       On February 24,  Judge Zimmerman (Judge Manley having become
  unavailable)  granted the  State's application for a tenth search warrant,
  as well as a motion to seal the warrant, affidavits, and  inventory.  A
  return and inventory for the tenth warrant had not been filed at the time
  of these proceedings.

       This case commenced on February 23, when a reporter for The Times
  Argus moved for limited  intervention in the Vermont proceeding in order to
  request access to the previously sealed search warrants  and related
  materials.  Additional motions for limited intervention to unseal the
  subject documents were later  filed on behalf of the other appellants. At
  the expedited hearing on appellants' motion,  the State advanced  general
  arguments in favor of nondisclosure, asserting that the investigation was
  ongoing, as evidenced by  the succession of search warrants, that evidence
  was still being gathered and analyzed, and that unsealing  the records
  could  jeopardize the discovery of additional evidence and allow potential
  witnesses to tailor  their statements to the evidence.   

       Following the hearing, the trial court (Judge Zimmerman) issued a
  written order and decision.  The  court concluded: (1) the First Amendment
  does not provide a right of access to pre-indictment search  warrant
  materials; (2) the search warrant materials are not public records under 4
  V.S.A. § 

  

  693 because  they do not relate to a "cause" in the district court, and are
  not "records of the court" subject to disclosure;  and (3) although there
  is a qualified common-law right of access to judicial records, the State
  had  demonstrated sufficient cause to retain the records under seal. The
  latter conclusion was based upon the  court's finding that the public
  interest is not furthered through piecemeal dissemination of information
  that  cannot be tested through the adversarial process, and that the
  materials relate to an ongoing investigation  and reference a number of
  items of potential evidentiary value that have not been disclosed to the
  public,  some of which are awaiting forensic evaluation.  The trial court
  thus denied appellants'  request to unseal the  search warrants and related
  materials.  This appeal followed. (FN1)

       We conclude as follows.  The trial court's rejection of appellants'
  constitutional claim was amply  supported.  The great weight of authority
  holds that pre-indictment search warrant materials have not  "historically
  been open to the press and general public," Press-Enterprise Co. v.
  Superior Court,