Opinion ID: 1986231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Investigative Records Exception

Text: Campbell submits that she has a right under the Act to examine the documents in possession or control of the Machias Police Department relating to the complaint filed against her by Machias Savings Bank. She contends that the requested information is not excepted by the Act. The Town argues that the records have been designated by statute as confidential and are excepted from the Act. The Act provides that: Except as otherwise provided by statute, every person shall have the right to inspect and copy any public record during the regular business hours of the custodian or location of such record.... 1 M.R.S.A. § 408 (emphasis added). A provision of the Criminal History Record Information Act, 16 M.R.S.A. §§ 611-622 (1983 & Supp.1994), states: Reports or records in the custody of a local, county or district criminal justice agency ... containing intelligence and investigative information are confidential and may not be disseminated if there is a reasonable possibility that public release or inspection of the reports or records would: A. Interfere with law enforcement proceedings;.... 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1)(A) (emphasis added). The language of this exception in the Maine Act is nearly identical to the corresponding provision of the federal Freedom of Information Act provision: (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.... 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (Pamph.1995) (emphasis added). Cases arising under the federal act are useful in analyzing the scope of Maine's act. Under the federal act, information that will prematurely reveal the scope, nature or direction of the government's case may be withheld. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. United States EPA, 856 F.2d 309, 312-13 (D.C.Cir.1988) (government's case concerned numerous violations of environmental protection statutes). Information that would allow the target of a criminal investigation to construct defenses or to fabricate alibis, or information that creates the possibility of harassment or intimidation of witnesses, may also be withheld. NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 239, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 2325, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978) (government's case concerned unfair labor practices). Finally, information that could result in the destruction of evidence may be withheld pursuant to this exception. Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir.1987) (government's case concerned investigation of failure to file income tax returns). See also 37A AM.JUR.2D § 303. In his letter to the Chief, the District Attorney advised that the records Campbell was requesting should not be disclosed because more evidence might be developed. He did not want to compromise the case by providing discovery prior to a formal charge being lodged. He was also concerned that disclosure could interfere with the collection of evidence and might result in the harassment of witnesses. [4] We reject Campbell's contention, based on North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C.Cir. 1989), that the Town failed to make a particularized showing sufficient to fall within the investigatory records exception. The North case contemplates the kind of showing approved in the foregoing federal cases. [5] Finally, the fact that two years have passed since the initial filing of the criminal complaint in this case does not compel disclosure. A record of investigation which qualifies as a confidential law enforcement investigatory record does not forfeit its statutory protection merely because there has been a passage of time with no forthcoming enforcement action. 37A AM.JUR.2D § 299. See, e.g., State ex rel. Polovischak v. Mayfield, 50 Ohio St.3d 51, 552 N.E.2d 635 (1990) (investigation began 4 years prior to court action with no enforcement action taken though case still open). If the investigation is open or there is a reasonable possibility of future law enforcement proceedings at the time of the request, the documents are exempt. Church of Scientology of Texas v. IRS, 816 F.Supp. 1138, 1157 (W.D.Tex.1993). The trial court properly determined that the Town did not act improperly in refusing to deliver the requested documents to Campbell or her attorney. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.