Opinion ID: 887395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 23 Did the County Attorney negligently breach a duty owed to Svaldi when he revealed to a newspaper the initial offense report naming Svaldi as a possible suspect in an offense? ¶ 24 Svaldi argues, pursuant to a 1988 Attorney General's Opinion, the initial offense report in this case did not constitute public criminal justice information, as Svaldi was a mere suspect and was never charged with any crime. See 42 Mont. Op. No. 119 Atty. Gen. 454 (1988). In this opinion, the Attorney General stated that as a general rule initial offense reports must be made publicly available, however, circumstances may arise in which these documents involve a privacy interest which clearly exceeds the public's right to know. 42 Mont. Op. No. 119, 464. This, according to the Attorney General, may be the case where an innocent person is publicly designated as a suspect in a crime. 42 Mont. Op. No. 119, 464. ¶ 25 Considering the uncontested facts of this case, we are not called on to determine if the Attorney General was correct in his 1988 opinion referenced above. We decline to do so. ¶ 26 Svaldi attempts to further support her argument by reference to Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 260 Mont. at 227, 859 P.2d at 441, where this Court noted suspects may have an expectation of privacy in certain circumstances because criminal investigations occasionally result in the designation of the innocent as suspects, particularly in the early stages of investigation. Thus, according to Svaldi, as she was a mere suspect in this case, she had a privacy interest in the initial offense report which outweighed the public's right to know. Her reasoning is flawed. ¶ 27 Section 44-5-103(13)(e)(i), MCA, states that initial offense reports constitute public criminal justice information which can be publicly disseminated without restriction pursuant to § 44-5-301(1), MCA. ¶ 28 Citizens to Recall Mayor James Whitlock v. Whitlock (1992), 255 Mont. 517, 844 P.2d 74; Great Falls Tribune Co., Inc. v. Cascade County Sheriff (1989), 238 Mont. 103, 775 P.2d 1267; and Bozeman Daily Chronicle support our conclusion that the public's right to know outweighs Svaldi's right to privacy under the facts presented. ¶ 29 In Great Falls Tribune, a newspaper sought public disclosure of the names of three law enforcement officers disciplined for their actions in running over a suspect on a public sidewalk with a police car after the suspect fled on foot from a high-speed chase. This Court held the public's right to know outweighed the privacy interest of the officers in preventing the release of their names because police officers occupy positions of great public trust. Great Falls Tribune, 238 Mont. at 107, 775 P.2d at 1269. ¶ 30 In Bozeman Daily Chronicle, the newspaper sought public release of the investigative documents associated with a police officer accused of sexual intercourse without consent by a cadet at the Law Enforcement Academy under the right to know clause of the Montana Constitution. No criminal charges were ever filed against the officer, but he was forced to resign from the police force. This Court held that even though criminal investigative information constitutes confidential criminal justice information, such alleged misconduct went directly to the police officer's breach of his position of public trust; that, therefore, this conduct is a proper matter for public scrutiny; and that, accordingly, the Chronicle has met its initial burden to make a proper showing to receive the confidential criminal justice information at issue. Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 260 Mont. at 227, 859 P.2d at 440-41. ¶ 31 The reasons for public disclosure of allegations against persons holding positions of great public trust which this Court discussed in Great Falls Tribune, 238 Mont. at 107, 775 P.2d at 1269, and in Whitlock, 255 Mont. at 522, 844 P.2d at 77, apply to Svaldi under the facts presented here. As a teacher in the public schools, entrusted with the care and instruction of children, her position is one of public trust. Also, the allegations of misconduct, assault against her students, went directly to her ability to properly carry out her duties. As in Whitlock, where we pointed out that the particular allegations of misconduct went directly to the public official's ability to properly carry out his duties, it is not required that the allegations against Svaldi be withheld from public scrutiny even though no criminal charges were ultimately filed against her. Whitlock, 255 Mont. at 522-24, 844 P.2d at 77-78. ¶ 32 Further, as discussed in Issue I, Svaldi cannot seriously claim her privacy rights were violated by the release of the initial offense report when it was already public knowledge that the allegations were against her, what the allegations were, who was involved as complainants, that she was the subject of a School Board investigation concerning the allegations, and that her intended retirement from teaching was connected to these same allegations. Grayson was justified in releasing the report.