Court Opinion

ID: 9754327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:55:22.293056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:52.159766
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
¶ 5. dissenting. I would deny the stay in this case. In my opinion, the State has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the most critical criterion for granting a stay in this Court. In reaching this conclusion, I am very aware that the stay decision effectively decides this case. Once we have full briefing and argument, and render a full decision on the merits of the public access question, it is very likely that the issue will be moot, and the press will have access to the documents it seeks to view because the case will have reached a point where the disappearance of the missing couple is explained. As examples of how long it takes to fully adjudicate such cases, we have under submission in this Court three significant public-access-to-records cases in which the request for the records occurred at least a year ago. One goes back to 2008.1 doubt that this case will be resolved in any shorter period of time.
¶ 6. The heart of my disagreement lies in the showing that the State must make in order to seal a court record. Search warrant records are accessible after the warrant is served “unless sealed by order of the court.” Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records 6(b)(15). A sealing order may be issued “only upon a finding of good cause specific to the case before the judge and exceptional circumstances.” Id. 7(a). These requirements are consistent with those announced in In re Sealed Documents, 172 Vt. 152, 161-62, 772 A.2d 518, 527 (2001). This Court noted in that decision that the State had to demonstrate a compelling need for confidentiality specific to each record to be sealed. Id. at 163, 772 A.2d at 527. Further, the order can go no further than necessary to protect the interests involved, including a finding that redaction could not be employed. Id. at 162, 772 A.2d at 527.
¶ 7. The State’s argument for sealing all search warrant material in this case is based on an affidavit from an officer in the Essex Police Department. While the affidavit is sealed, there are no grounds for keeping confidential the two critical paragraphs, and I quote them.
*57415. It is common practice in police investigation to keep details learned through investigation confidential, in order to be able to use those details to decipher credible tips and information from non-credible tips and information. If all of the above information were to be released to the public it would significantly hamper our ability to determine what information we receive is legitimate and relevant to our investigation, and what information is not.
16. Any potential suspect may be following this investigation in the media. The release of the above information would give any suspect access to most information and evidence the police possess. This would allow a suspect to easily avoid detection and/or respond to police questioning. It is also likely that any potential witness or false witness may be following media coverage of this investigation. Release of the above information could unduly influence the recollection of true witnesses, or allow any false witnesses to tailor information to fit with what is already known to the police.
It is fair to say that these circumstances are present in every major criminal investigation until the State has “solved” it and identified the perpetrator it will charge. That is exactly the point of the thorough trial court decision. There is very little special about the facts the State wants to withhold in this ease, and the State wants to withhold some facts even if insignificant. There is no specific showing that disclosing the facts that are in the search warrant requests and affidavits will make it easy for suspects to evade detection.
¶ 8. To the extent there are many detailed facts in the search warrant applications and supporting affidavits, that circumstance is caused in part by the State’s choice of what to include in those documents. Apparently, some of the details were simply copied from application to application even though they may not be necessary for the specific search warrant request in issue. Further, the State has acknowledged that it could redact information from the affidavit and warrant requests so as to disclose some information that would not threaten the investigation; it then says the information that would be disclosed is already public. This argument is inconsistent with the affidavit quoted above that says if “all of the above information were to be released to the public,” the harm to the investigation would occur. To the extent that this has become an all or nothing decision, the fault for that circumstance lies with the State.
¶ 9. If we want to broaden the exception for public access to search warrant materials to cover the period until the State charges a criminal defendant, we should do that by amendment to the rule. Reduced to its essence, the State’s appeal requests that we accomplish the same result by reversing the trial court order granting access in this case based on general assertions that would apply in every case. I would hold that the State failed to establish the strong likelihood of success that is necessary for a stay, and therefore I dissent from the Court’s decision to grant it.
¶ 10. I am authorized to state that Justice Johnson joins this dissent.