Opinion ID: 2180233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balancing of the Private and Public Interests

Text: [¶ 36] The Superior Court concluded, in effect, that any residual personal privacy rights that could be claimed by those named in the documents sought by Blethen are nominal and must bend to the public interest. The court declined to redact the names of living persons and other identifying information because of how much information would have to be taken out and the extent to which this information is likely already known, at least at a local level. We have concluded that although the privacy rights of the deceased priests and their families are, at most, minimal, the residual personal privacy rights of the living individuals named in the records persist, albeit tempered by the manner in which the information was reported to public and church officials. [¶ 37] An additional analytical step is required in evaluating the privacy interests of the living individuals named in the records. If all identifying information concerning such individuals can be redacted from the records prior to disclosure and redaction does not prevent the public interest in disclosure from being fully realized, the privacy interests of the living individuals in the redacted documents become greatly reduced. The effectiveness of redaction of the records in this case was suggested by Blethen in the body of its complaint: [I]nformation directly identifying alleged victims can be redacted consistent with the Law Court's interpretation of the FOAA. Before us, Blethen supports the Superior Court's decision not to require redaction, but also acknowledges that [l]imited redaction, if necessary, is an eminently appropriate alternative to complete non-disclosure in this case given the extraordinary public interests. [¶ 38] Maine courts can require redaction of records in connection with FOAA requests. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 2000 ME 126, ¶ 11 n. 4, 754 A.2d 353, 357 (stating that we have held that protected information can be excised from a document to allow that document to be disclosed). Blethen does not allege, nor has it been demonstrated, that the identification of the individuals named in the records, other than the deceased priests, is required to fulfill the public interest asserted in support of disclosure. [¶ 39] The Superior Court ultimately decided against the redaction of the records sought by Blethen for two reasons: a lot of information would have to be taken out of the records, and some of the identifying information may have previously been publicly disclosed. The degree of cutting and pasting required to redact documents cannot justify bypassing redaction unless it is demonstrated to be truly impractical or onerous. The records at issue consist of eighty-two pages, and the elimination of the names and all identifying information (e.g., places of residence; names of family members, friends, treatment providers, and others; addresses; and phone numbers) associated with the persons named in the records, other than the deceased priests, is neither impractical nor onerous. In addition, for the reasons stated earlier, the prior public disclosure of several of the allegations does not vitiate the need to protect the privacy rights of the individuals named in the records through redaction if that can be achieved without undermining the public interest served by disclosure. [¶ 40] Accordingly, we conclude that the public interest in the disclosure of the records is substantial and that the public interest supporting disclosure can be realized even with the redaction of all identifying information regarding the persons identified in the records other than the deceased priests. On balance, the identified public interest exceeds the privacy interests associated with the records once they are redacted. We therefore affirm the court's determination that the records requested by Blethen should be disclosed, but we vacate that portion of its decision that decided against redaction of the records prior to their disclosure. This matter is remanded for the entry of a new judgment that provides for disclosure of the records after redaction of the names and other identifying information of persons named in the records other than the deceased priests. The entry is: Judgment affirmed in part, and vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SAUFLEY, C.J., concurring. [¶ 41] I concur in the result of the above opinion, but, because I disagree with its rejection of the principles outlined in National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004), I write separately. [¶ 42] Any analysis of the records request in this case must begin with the acknowledgment that criminal investigation records, such as the records at issue here, are not subsumed within the general sunshine laws, and, in contrast to most government records, are not available for public review unless certain conditions have been met. It is in minimizing this distinction that the Court's opinion goes astray. [¶ 43] Although most public records and procedures are open to the public as a matter of declared state policy, 1 M.R.S.A. § 401 (1989), a clear exception to that policy applies to certain investigative information kept in the custody of a criminal justice agency. 1 M.R.S.A. § 402(3)(A) (Supp.2004); 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1) (Supp.2004). Those records are  confidential and may not be disseminated if any one of eleven reasons for maintaining that confidentiality is demonstrated. 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1)(A)-(K) (emphasis added). Unlike many other governmental records, and for the policy reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the Legislature did not intend for such investigatory information to be presumed accessible to the public pursuant to Maine's Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S.A. §§ 401-410 (1989 & Supp.2004). [¶ 44] The distinction between ordinary public records and criminal investigation records has an historical basis. The reluctance to release investigatory records, which contain personal and private information about individual citizens gathered through the power of the State, has been addressed in a similar context in federal law. As the Supreme Court has concluded regarding public access to prosecutorial records, the central purpose of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 (1996 & Supp.2004), is to ensure that the government's activities are open to scrutiny, not to make available information about private citizens. See, e.g., United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 774, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989). [¶ 45] There are few discernable differences between treatment of criminal investigatory records pursuant to FOIA and the treatment of the same records pursuant to Maine's parallel FOAA statute, and the associated statutes. [12] In interpreting FOIA, the Supreme Court in Favish recognized the unique nature of investigatory records in criminal cases and emphasized the prohibition on their release unless there are allegations and evidence of government misconduct that warrant disclosure of the information. 541 U.S. at 173-74, 124 S.Ct. 1570. [¶ 46] I would, as the dissent does, apply the teachings of Favish to the analysis before us. That is, I would conclude that in the absence of an allegation of governmental wrongdoing, the interests in protection of the witnesses, alleged victims, informants, and others who have been the subject of investigation would outweigh the public's interest in the disclosure of the records. [¶ 47] The question then is whether there exists in the case before us a credible allegation of governmental misconduct. Admittedly, Blethen does not specifically articulate that allegation in detail, given that the complaint and briefs in the present case were filed prior to the Supreme Court's announcement of its decision in Favish. Nonetheless, I would conclude that the serious allegations of child sexual abuse, involving many children, made or alleged to have occurred over decades, without prosecution, is equivalent to an allegation of governmental misconduct in the present case. The number of alleged separate incidents, perpetrators, and child victims, as well as the many decades over which the allegations span, are substantial. Hence, I would conclude that the present case, unique in its factual background, presents a sufficient allegation of governmental wrongdoing to require a balancing against the private interests to be protected. [13] [¶ 48] Engaging in that balancing test, I conclude that the public's interest in the records must prevail. The personal privacy of all witnesses and alleged victims will have been protected by the redaction of any information that could identify those individuals. The only remaining question of privacy relates then to the priests who were the focus of the reports, each of whom is now long deceased. In this highly unusual setting, where the only remaining privacy interests have all but evaporated over time, the reasons for allowing the prosecutor to withhold the records from the public have been greatly diminished. [14] [¶ 49] In this unique setting, where the Court has protected the privacy of the alleged victims and there is no reasonable possibility that the release will interfere with law enforcement, the determination that the records may be released as redacted does not present the dangerous implications regarding law enforcement that the dissent addresses. Given the unique facts of the present case, the holding today has limited precedential force and should not have the chilling effect on prosecutorial investigations that the dissent suggests. [¶ 50] Accordingly, I agree that, with appropriate protections for the personal privacy of alleged victims and witnesses, the release of these records is appropriate. CLIFFORD, J., with whom RUDMAN and ALEXANDER, JJ., join, dissenting. [¶ 51] Sound public policy requires that most of the information contained in the investigative files currently in the possession of the Attorney General should be, and, pursuant to a correct interpretation of the relevant statutory law, is protected from public dissemination. Maine's Criminal History Record Information Act, 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1)(C) (Supp.2004), protects the information contained in those files because there is more than a reasonable possibility that its public release would [c]onstitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [¶ 52] In my view, the Court erroneously concludes that the personal privacy interests in the information contained in the files have been seriously diminished by the way the incidents of alleged abuse have been reported. Moreover, the Court departs dramatically from precedent and employs much too lenient a standard in concluding that there is a significant public interest that outweighs the privacy interests involved and warrants disclosure of the information. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. [¶ 53] Section 614(1) of the Criminal History Record Information Act expressly excepts certain information from public disclosure pursuant to Maine's Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S.A. §§ 401-410 (1989 & Supp.2004). [15] Pursuant to section 614(1)(A) and (C), if the information to be disclosed contains intelligence and investigative information and is confidential, it may not be released as long as there is a reasonable possibility that public release or inspection will interfere with law enforcement or will [c]onstitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [¶ 54] The language of our Criminal History Record Information Act excepting criminal history information from public disclosure is nearly identical to the language in the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)(7)(C) (1996). In interpreting FOAA to determine when information in the possession of public officials should or should not be released, we have said that we are guided by cases construing the federal FOIA counterpart. [16] Campbell v. Town of Machias, 661 A.2d 1133, 1136 (Me.1995). [¶ 55] The language of the federal statute and our statute, as well as corresponding precedent, instructs that we should balance the private interests against the public interests that may be involved in deciding whether disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171-72, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004); United States Dep't of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 495, 114 S.Ct. 1006, 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994); United States Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 175, 112 S.Ct. 541, 116 L.Ed.2d 526 (1991); United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 762, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989). [¶ 56] In the present case, the information in the subject files contains the identities of the alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine and the names of the accused priests. Federal courts have wisely observed that people do not want their names connected with criminal investigations, Mack v. Dep't of the Navy, 259 F.Supp.2d 99, 106 (D.D.C.2003), and that the disclosure of names of potential witnesses in criminal cases carries the potential for future harassment, Neely v. FBI, 208 F.3d 461, 464-65 (4th Cir.2000). Such disclosure, not only of names, but also of the substance of their statements, carries the potential for future humiliation and embarrassment. Id. at 465. Except for those persons who have voluntarily made their allegations public, the victims and witnesses whose names are contained in the files have a substantial interest in not having their names released to the public. Davis v. United States Dep't of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1281 (D.C.Cir.1992) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 57] Title 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1)(C) reflects the Legislature's recognition of the great harm that can result from unwarranted public dissemination of information collected by law enforcement agencies. By its very nature, intelligence and investigative information is often sensitive and implicates the privacy and other fundamental rights of the individuals affected by it. The means by which intelligence and investigative information is collected is essential to the relationship between the government and its citizenry. Collection of such information depends upon the willingness of private citizens to voluntarily provide information, as well as the unique power of the government to compel citizens to disclose information through the exercise of its warrant and subpoena authority. The use and dissemination of intelligence and investigative information by prosecutors and law enforcement agencies are vital to effective law enforcement and to the protection of individual rights. [¶ 58] I disagree with the Court's conclusion that the privacy interests of the people who reported the incidents, but who did not do so publicly, are diminished to any substantial degree. Although there has been some public disclosure of some of the names contained in the records, [17] most of the information, including the most private facts such as the names of victims, witnesses, and accused perpetrators, has not yet been publicly disclosed. Further, almost all of the reports were made to the Diocese and not to prosecutors, [18] and thus most of those who came forward to report alleged abuse did not do so with the certain expectation that prosecution would ensue. In my view, the privacy interests of those who made the reports have not been diminished to any substantial degree by the way the incidents were reported. Although the Court ultimately orders the names of the alleged victims to be redacted, it does so not because their privacy rights outweigh what the Court concludes is in the public interest, but rather, because in the present case it is neither impractical nor onerous to do so, and what the Court depicts as the public interest will not be undermined by the redaction. [¶ 59] The federal courts have concluded that there are some reputational interests and family-related privacy expectations [that] survive death, Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 33 (D.C.Cir.1998). I agree, and would not conclude that such interests in this case have been completely extinguished. In Favish, the United States Supreme Court recently recognized the privacy interest of a deceased person's immediate family members and what the survivors describe as the right, to be shielded by the exemption to secure their own refuge from a sensation-seeking culture for their own peace of mind and tranquility, not for the sake of the deceased. Favish, 541 U.S. at 166, 124 S.Ct. 1570. Although I agree that the privacy interests of the families of the deceased priests have significantly diminished over time, I would not conclude that such residual privacy interests are so minimal that their names can be subjected to disclosure without any substantial showing of a significant public interest to make such disclosure warranted within the meaning of 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1)(C). If there is no public interest that would be served by disclosure of the names, there is no balancing to be done because the existence of some privacy interest must necessarily outweigh no public interest. Computer Prof'ls for Soc. Responsibility v. United States Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 905 (D.C.Cir.1996). [¶ 60] The Court additionally errs in the present case by concluding that there is a public interest within the meaning of our jurisprudence that is to be balanced against those privacy interests, much less a significant public interest that compels disclosure. The Court reaches this conclusion only by straying far from the case law that we have said we should rely on to interpret FOAA. [¶ 61] That it is a newspaper publisher that seeks the information does not establish the existence of a public interest sufficient to warrant an invasion of personal privacy. The existence of a public interest in the disclosure of investigation records does not turn on the identity of the person or organization requesting the information. FLRA, 510 U.S. at 499, 114 S.Ct. 1006. If investigative records are subject to disclosure, they are subject to disclosure to anyone who requests them. [19] Favish, 541 U.S. at 172, 124 S.Ct. 1570. [¶ 62] The decision of whether a possible invasion of privacy is warranted turns on the nature of the requested information and whether its disclosure will advance the central purpose for the disclosure of investigative records. In weighing whether the public interest justifies such an invasion of privacy, a court should determine whether the disclosure of the investigative records would serve the central purpose of FOAA: [A]lthough there is undoubtedly some public interest in anyone's criminal history, especially if the history is in some way related to the subject's dealing with a public official or agency, the FOIA's central purpose is to ensure that the Government's activities be opened to the sharp eye of public scrutiny, not that information about private citizens that happens to be in the warehouse of the Government be so disclosed. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 774, 109 S.Ct. 1468 (emphasis added). [¶ 63] The Supreme Court made clear in Reporters Committee that the purpose of the FOIA is to serve the public interest in determining the existence or extent of any government impropriety. See id. Thus, the requested disclosure of private information that implicates no wrongdoing on the part of a governmental entity generates insufficient public interest and therefore falls well outside the scope and application of FOAA. A public interest sufficient to overcome the privacy interest protected by the privacy exemption cannot be established unless there is a claim of governmental wrongdoing and evidence to support that claim. See Computer Prof'ls for Soc. Responsibility, 72 F.3d 897 at 905. [¶ 64] To allow disclosure in the absence of such evidence establishing governmental wrongdoing would render the exception to disclosure established by section 614(1)(C) ineffective. Law enforcement investigatory records would become subject to disclosure based only on a claim that there is a general public interest in the subject of an investigative record. General public interest in an investigation  i.e., that the subject has become the focus of public attention or concern  does not comport with FOAA's central purpose. Such a relaxed standard will be impractical to implement in view of the hundreds or possibly thousands of law enforcement investigations that are of interest to the general public, and which lead to the filing of so many criminal cases in our courts each year. If such a low threshold for disclosure is adopted as the standard for determining whether sensitive confidential information is to be disclosed, the chilling effect on the willingness of individuals to cooperate in criminal investigations could be substantial. If victims and witnesses, understandably reluctant to participate in criminal investigations, come to understand that confidential records documenting their cooperation will be readily subject to disclosure to anyone who can establish a general public interest in the subject, that cooperation will be vastly more difficult to achieve. [¶ 65] Accordingly, to establish the existence of a public interest that would warrant disclosure of the names in the files in the present case, Blethen should be required to produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that ... alleged Government impropriety might have occurred. Favish, 541 U.S. at 174, 124 S.Ct. 1570. This it has failed to do. Blethen's Rule 80B complaint alleges only that there is a great public interest in disclosure of the scope and extent of alleged sexual abuse by the clergy. The complaint does not assert any government impropriety, nor does the record suggest or address any impropriety in the investigation conducted by the Attorney General or other governmental agencies. Most of the records were turned over voluntarily to the Attorney General, or to the District Attorney, not by the people asserting the abuse, but rather by the Diocese. Although, as suggested by Blethen, the records may be relevant to whether the Diocese of Portland mishandled allegations of sexual abuse by its priests, the Diocese is a private actor. The disclosure of records that may reflect on the conduct of the Diocese does not fall within FOAA's central purpose of subjecting government activities to public scrutiny. [¶ 66] Blethen failed to allege, and certainly has not established, that any government impropriety has occurred. In my view, the Court deviates from established precedent to improperly conclude that general public curiosity meets the substantial public interest standard, and is sufficient to warrant the invasion of the privacy interests concerned. [¶ 67] Even though the Court comes to a final conclusion that the names of the witnesses making the allegations should be redacted prior to disclosure of all the other information in the files, it does so only after determining that the redaction can be easily accomplished. The protection of the privacy interests of witnesses who come forward in criminal investigations should not depend on the broad discretion of a trial court to determine, perhaps years later, whether the act of redacting the names of those witnesses before the files containing their names are released is impractical or onerous, or whether redaction will undermine a vague and general public interest. Such a standard has serious implications for the ability of law enforcement agencies to gather investigatory information. [¶ 68] Police and prosecutors will not be able to give complete assurance of confidentiality to persons contemplating reporting crimes and evidence of crimes. Knowledge that criminal investigative files may be released and publicized on demand by any organization or person will have the effect of deterring the reporting of criminal activity out of fear that, even if prosecution is not initiated, humiliating and embarrassing events in personal lives may be revealed years later. Especially affected will be victims of traumatic and sensitive crimes, such as sexual assault. [¶ 69] I would vacate the judgment and remand for the entry of a judgment in favor of the State of Maine and the Department of the Attorney General. ALEXANDER, J., dissenting.