In re Warrants, SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2011-228
| Decision Date | 18 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2011-228 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Search Warrants |
APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
¶ 1. The State appeals a decision of the superior court's criminal division denying its motion to seal executed search warrants and accompanying documents associated with an investigation involving a missing couple. The criminal division denied the motion based on its conclusion that the State had failed to make the kind of particularized showing of harm required by our holding in In re Sealed Documents, 172 Vt. 152, 153, 772 A.2d 518, 521 (2001) (). The court also denied the State's motion for a stay of its order pending appeal, reiterating that the State had presented only generalized claims of harm that could be made in any investigation.
¶ 2. The standard for reviewing a request for a stay pending appeal is well-settled:
To prevail on a motion for stay, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury if the stay is not granted; (3) the stay will not substantially harm other parties; and (4) the stay will serve the best interests of the public.
Gilbert v. Gilbert, 163 Vt. 549, 560, 664 A.2d 239, 245 (1995). Regarding the likelihood of the State prevailing on the merits of its challenge to the criminal division's refusal to seal the requested documents, we note that the instant matter involves circumstances not present in In re Sealed Documents that militate in favor of a more cautionary approach to releasing the search warrant documents. In In re Sealed Documents, the victims of the crime were deceased and the suspects in custody. Here, in contrast, the putative victims are missing and no suspects are in custody. Under these circumstances, both the State and the public have a heightened interest in not undermining the criminal investigation through the revelation of facts not generally known to the public. Although the public and the press generally have a presumptive right to court documents, that right may be trumped by the State's, as well as the public's, interest in preserving the investigation of a potentially serious crime, especially when the right to access does not serve as a check against an unjust conviction, excessive punishment, or the unwarranted taint of criminality.
¶ 3. Accompanying the motion to seal, the State submitted affidavits describing particular facts not known to the general public that were discovered during the search of the putative victims' home and property. The State alleged that the release of those facts to the public could undermine its criminal investigation, which is still in its early stages with the putative victims still missing and no suspects in custody. If we were to deny the State's request for a stay, it would effectively preclude the State from appealing the criminal division's decision and potentially hamper its investigation. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to stay the matter until the underlying legal issue is resolved. See In re Sealed Documents, 172 Vt. at 164-65, 772 A.2d at 528-29 (); cf. 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5) ().
¶ 4. The dissent notes that the State is seeking to seal all of the search warrant documents when it could have simply redacted any information that posed a threat to its investigation. As the dissent acknowledges, however, in its motion to seal the State offered the possibility of redacting certain information or documents, but the court nonetheless denied the motion outright without providing the State any opportunity to redact. That is the decision that has been appealed—the only question before us at this particular juncture is whether we should stay pending appeal the wholesale denial of the motion to seal.
The criminal division's order denying the State's motion to seal the search warrant documents and pleadings is stayed, and public access to those documents—apart from the paragraphs quoted in Justice Dooley's dissent—is denied, pending this Court's resolution of the State's appeal of the order.
¶ 5. DOOLEY, J., 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. I 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(16). A...
To continue reading
Request your trial