Court Opinion

ID: 9558688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:15:34.49268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:30.956969
License: Public Domain

DEITS, C. J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s holding, and I agree with its conclusion that the public interest in disclosure of the personnel discipline records in this case takes them out of the exemption provided by ORS 192.501(12). Specifically, I concur in the majority’s view that the public has a legitimate interest in the integrity of a police officer of Captain Garvey’s rank and that the matters involved in the disciplinary action bear on that interest.
I write this concurrence to emphasize a point that the majority touches on obliquely but does not spell out. Plaintiffs argument concerning the absence of the requisite public interest in the off-duty activities in question might be well taken if it were not for the public significance of Garvey’s position. Although not an elected official, Garvey has assumed a high-ranking law enforcement position that requires a substantial level of public confidence and trust. Given the nature of Garvey’s governmental role, I join the majority in concluding that the situation here bridges the gap — if barely — between public notoriety or curiosity about the off-duty activities of a government employee and the kind of “public interest” that the statute contemplates.