Opinion ID: 1902315
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Travell

Text: The plaintiff, a community-action group called Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), sought access to Providence police department records pertaining to civilian complaints of police misconduct. On or about September 17, 1993, DARE filed a written request with defendant, Bernard E. Gannon, in his capacity as chief of police for the city of Providence (city), asking for:
b.) A listing of all findings from investigations that was [sic ] conducted by the Bureau of Internal Affairs, in reference to all `Providence Police Civilian Complaint reports' (Form 210) on record from 1986 to present. c.) All reports made by the `Providence Police Department Hearing officers[ on thier [ sic ] decesions [ sic ] from the findings of investigations conducted in Re: Providence Police Civilian Complaints' (Form 210) from 1986 to present. d.) Reports on all disciplinary action that's [ sic ] been taken as a result of recommendations made by the Hearing Officers['] Division since 1986 to present. [1] The request by DARE also acknowledge[d] that under law there will be deletions of names and addresses of the complaintants [ sic ] as well as officers listed in the reports and demanded compliance with its request within 10 days as the law stipulates. See G.L.1956 § 38-2-7. After the city failed to comply with its request, DARE appealed to John J. Partington (Partington), the Commissioner of Public Safety, in a letter dated December 27, 1993, again requesting access to the pertinent records. Following this correspondence, representatives from DARE met with Partington and other various representatives of the Providence police department. During this meeting, the representatives from DARE learned that the city was presently awaiting a written decision from its solicitor, Charles Mansolillo (Mansolillo), regarding the release of the records DARE sought, and that pending Mansolillo's decision, the city would process DARE's request. Apparently frustrated with the delays, DARE wrote a letter to the Attorney General, on September 28, 1994, appealing for assistance. In an unofficial opinion dated November 10, 1994, the Attorney General's office concluded that neither the complaints nor the findings of investigations made by the Bureau of Internal Affairs represented final action and that, therefore, requests (a) and (b) were expressly excluded under the [APRA] from public disclosure. Regarding request (c), the Attorney General's office relied on this Court's holding in The Rake v. Gorodetsky, 452 A.2d 1144 (R.I.1982) and determined that reports made by the hearing officers which include the action of the police chief noted thereon represent final actions taken on the matter. Consequently, the reports are subject to disclosure under the [APRA], provided that the reports do not identify the citizen complainants or police officers. Finally, the Attorney General's office opined that DARE's request for records concerning disciplinary action taken based on the recommendation of the Hearing Officers' Division, request (d), was properly denied since it fell within the exception prohibiting the disclosure of records maintained to    discipline any employee of a public body. See G.L.1956 § 38-2-2(d)(1), as amended by P.L.1991, ch. 208, § 1. [2] In a letter dated November 28, 1994, Mansolillo responded to DARE's request. Referencing the same statutory exemptions as the Attorney General's office, Mansolillo similarly concluded that requests (a), (b), and (d) were exempt from disclosure, whereas request (c) was publicly accessible in redacted form. Having exhausted its administrative remedies and having failed in its attempts to obtain all the requested information, DARE filed this action in the Superior Court. Thereafter, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Before the trial justice the city expressed its willingness to disclose the final hearing officers' report with their final action taken on it and the final action of the police chief    with all of the names of both complainant and the police officer involved having been redacted. On its part DARE reaffirmed its desire to obtain access to all four categories of records and, in the words of the trial justice, [did] not seek the names of police officers accused of misconduct and seem[ed] to concede that the law prohibits the disclosure of identities. Nevertheless, the trial justice, motivated by his conviction that people in a free and democratic society [ought] to have access to governmental records which are `relevant to the public health, safety and welfare,' opined that DARE is entitled to all the records it sought, without the redaction of any names. (Emphasis added.) On June 11, 1996, summary judgment was entered in favor of DARE in accordance with the trial justice's prior decision. The city appeals from this judgment. Thereafter, on June 28, 1996, the Providence Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 3 (FOP), moved to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Reasoning that there is nothing for the FOP to intervene into, the same trial justice denied the FOP's request, although he did grant a temporary fourteen-day stay of the order for the purpose of allowing the FOP to seek a stay from this Court. We granted the stay and the FOP filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of its motion to intervene.