154 [81 O p. Att’y PUB LIC INF ORMATI ON ACT S TATE ’ S A TTORNEYS

) D ISCLOSURE OF P ROSECU TORIAL F ILES

) G ROUNDS FOR W AIVER OF F EES

January 31, 1996

The Honorable Marna McLendon State’s Attorn ey for H ow ard C oun ty You have reques ted ou r opin ion o n the p roces sing o f certain requ ests ma de to your offi ce underthe Maryland Publ ic Inf ormation Ac t ( “PIA”). You have expl ained that your of fice r eceives numerous PIA requests each year, mostly fr om convicted d efend ants seeking disclos ure o f the pr osec utoria l files m aintain ed in th eir cases. Bec ause the req uester gene rall y pres ents an al l-encompassing request and the pros ecutori al fi les can be voluminous, the proce ssing of these r equests often ent ails a signi ficant amount of sta ff t ime and copying costs. Gene rall y the reque ster , as an incarcer ated indivi dua l, als o seeks a waiver of fees for the search and copying. You have asked whether youmust (i) grant t hese reques ts and al low disc losure and (ii ) waive the fees merel y because the reques te r adequately demonstrates pauper status. Ou r opin ion is as follow s: 1. The PIA wo uld req uire yo u to gran t these re ques ts unless you identify a bas is in the law that authorizes you not to do s o )for example, that di sclosur e wou ld int erfer e with a l aw enforcement pro cee din g. 2. You need not waive fees s olely be cause the request er lacks mo ney to pay the fe es. Ea ch req uest fo r a fee w aiver s hou ld be c ons ider ed in ligh t of th e w aive r stan dar ds in the P IA

. I Right of Access The PIA was enacted to provide the public a broad ri ght of access to reco rds m aintain ed by State and loca l go ver nm ents

. Fau lkGen. 154] 155

1 The key t

erms “c ustodian” and “pub lic record” are

defined in SG §10-611(c) and (f), respectively. The recor ds in question here are “pu blic records,”and you and your staff are “custodians” of the records. You are also the “official custodian” of all records in your office. SeeSG §10- 611(d).

2 This exem

ption also covers a ny “investigato ry file compiled for anyother la

w enfor cement,judicial,correctional, or prosecution purpose” and certain “records that contai n i ntelligen

ce infor mation or s ecurity procedures ....” SG §10-618(f)(1)(ii) a nd (iii).

3 The term “person in interest” is defined in SG §10-611(e). v. State’ s Attor ney fo r Ha rford C oun ty , 299 Md. 493, 506, 474 A.2d 880 (198 4); A.S. A bell Pub lishing Co . v. Mezzan ote , 297 Md. 26, 32, 464 A.2d 1068 (1983). In furt herance of thi s purpose, the P IA’s rule of constr uct io n is “in favor of pe rmittin g insp ection of a p ublic record, with the l east cos t and le ast del ay to the per son .. . [who] requ ests the ins pecti on.” §10-612(b) of the State Gov ernment (“SG”) Articl e, Maryland Code. Thus, “[e]xcept as otherwise permitt ed by law, a custodi an shall perm it a perso n or g over nm ental u nit to inspect any pu blic record at any reasonab le time.” SG §10-61 3(a). 1 Cons ist ent wi th th e br oad righ t of a cce ss g ran ted b y th e PI A, a request erhas a right t o judi cial review o f a custodian’s d enial of a request to ins pect publ ic rec o rds. SG §10-623. In a j udicia l proceedi ng aris ing out of such a d enial , the custodi an bears t he burden of est ablis hing a val id basi s for t he denial

. I

d. See also Fau lk , 299 Md. at 507. There are, of

course, limit s on t he right of access granted by the PIA. One potenti al basi s for denying ins pecti on of

case file s in a State’s Attorney ’s Offic e is SG §10 -618 (f)(1)(i), w hich g enera lly authori zes a custodi an who “believes that inspect ion

... would be contrary to the publ ic int erest

... [to] deny inspection of . .. r ecords of invest igati ons con ducted b y the A ttorney G eneral, a State’s Attorney, a city or co u nty attorney, a po lice departm ent, or a she riff.” 2
Howev er, th e PIA effectively grants a specialright of access to a “person i n inter est”

)that is, the subj ect of an invest igator y fil e. 3 A person i n inter est may be denie d the ri gh t to inspect per tinent investigatory and prosecut orialfiles of a State’s Attorney only to the extent that inspecti on would:156 [81 O p. Att’y

4 If some other PIA exemption applied to a record in the file – for example, the attorney work-product privilege embodied in SG §10-618(b) – acces s could be

denied on

that basis

. (i) int erfere with a vali d an d proper l aw enforcement proce eding; (ii) deprive another per son of a right to a fair tri al or an impartialadjudic ation; (iii) co nstitute an unwarranted invasi on of persona l pri vacy; (iv) discl ose the identity of a conf identi al source; (v) di s close aninvest igative techni que or procedure; (vi) prejudice an investigation; or (vii) endangerthe life or phy sical safe ty of an ind ividua l. SG §10-618(f) (2) . Abs ent one of t hese enumerate d reasons or another PIA exemption, the custodian must permit i nspecti on of the inve stig atory or p rose cuto rial file

. See Mayor and City Council v. Maryland

Com mittee Againstthe Gun Ban , 329 Md. 78, 81- 82, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). Yet, as t his off ice h as observed, “[t] he number and w ide sco pe of

these factors will ofte n lead to a de nial o f disclosure by the law enforcement agency, especia lly where r ecords have been rece ntly obt aine d an d ar e in a ctive use in in ves tigat ion s.” Office o f the Att orn ey G ene ral, Public I nformati on Act Manual20 (6th ed. 199 3). 4 Therefore , a State ’s Atto rney ma y no t have a bla nket ru le of denying PI A requ ests from inm ates se eking docu me nts in prosecut orialfil es, nor may a State’s Attorney deny inspec t ion me rely beca use to do so wo uld req uire se arch tim e and copying ex pense. Mayor and City Counci l of Baltimore v. Burke , 67 Md. App. 147, 157, 506 A. 2d 683 (1986). Ho we ver, to th e exte nt that a d ocum ent, or po rtion of a doc um ent, raise s one of the c once rns in SG §10-618(f) (2) or

is other wise with in a PIA exemption, you mayGen. 154] 157

5 An official custodian’s decision with respect to the denial of a fee waiver wil l o nly be reversed or modified by a court if the dec ision was arbitrary or capricious. Burke , 67 Md. App. at 156-57. deny inspection of t

he document orr edact t he sensi tive por

tion of the do cum ent. II Fee Waivers Pursuant to SG §10-621(a), the off icia l cu stodian of pu blic records “may charge an ap plican t a reaso nable fee for the search for, preparation of, andreproduction of a public records .” This provisi on reflects a legi slat ive judgment t hat the taxpayer s need notsubsidi ze PIA request ers (e x cept for the fir st two hours of sear ch and preparation time, whic h a r e free to the reque ster under SG §10- 621(b)). When an ap plican t asks fo r a w aiver, th e offic i al cust odian may waive the fee if, “a fter

consider ation of

the abi lit

y of the appl icant to pay the fe e and o t her rel evant fa ctors , the offi cialcustodi an determines that t

he waiver would be i n the public interes t.” SG §10- 621( d). This wording negat es any argument t hat povert

y alone entitles a requ ester to a fee w aiver; p over ty is but one of the “rele vantf

actors ” that

ulti mately le ad to a di scret ionary j udgment abo ut th e pu blic i nter est. Co nver sely, a d ecis ion on a fee waiver request may not be based solely o n th e expe nse that would be incurr ed if t he waiver were granted; a fee waiver request must be consider ed in li ght of t he abili ty of the r equester

to pay the fee and “ot

her rel evant fa ct ors. ” See Burke , 67 Md. App. at 157 (f inding Bal timore Cit

y’s deni al of fe e waiver reque st ar

bitr ary and capr icious because the City onl y consider ed the expense it would incur and did not consider

the pub lic interest). 5 Burde n on the off ice i s surely not ir

relevant, and might tip t

he public inter est as ses s me nt, but it ca nno t be the only con side ratio n. The broad ter

m “public int erest ” d oes not permit a precise lis ting of rel evant fa ctors . Cases have i dentif ied a“pub lic interest” in the dis closur e of records shedding l ight on a publ ic con trov ersy aboutoffic ial ac tion s, Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore , 734 P.2d158 [81 O p. Att’y 1083, 1089 ( Ka n. 198 7), and on an agen cy’s p erform ance of its p ubli c dut ies, Masse

y v. FBI, 3 F.3d 62 0, 625 (2d Cir. 1993 ). “Ho wev er, t he mer e p os sibi l i t y tha t i nf ormat i on ma y aid a n indivi dual in the p ursuit o f lit igatio n do es no t give rise to a pu blic inter est. ” Id. III Conclusion In summary, it

is our opinion that

a convict ed defendant

may obtain access t o the pros ecutori al fi le concer ning the defendant unless one or more of the fact ors speci fied in SG §10-618(f)( 2) exists or s om e other PIA exemption appli es. A defendant is not gene rally entitled to obtain acces s unless the defe ndant pays any app licab le fee s or y ou g ran t a fee wa iver in a p artic ular cas e. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Kathleen S. Hoke Assist ant Attorney General Jack Sch wa rtz Chief Counsel Opinions and Advic e Editor’ s Note: In Chap ter 403 of the Laws of Maryland 2002, t he General Ass em bly adde d a de finition o f “reas onab le fee” to the P ublic Informati on Ac t. See SG §10 -62 1(a ). The subsecti ons discu ssed in Part II above w ere redesigna ted as §10 -621(b), (c), and (e), respectively.