Lewiston Daily Sun v. City of Lewiston
| Citation | 596 A.2d 619 |
| Parties | 19 Media L. Rep. 1315 LEWISTON DAILY SUN, d/b/a Sun-Journal/Sunday v. CITY OF LEWISTON and Laurent F. Gilbert, Sr. |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1991 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Charles H. Abbott, Bryan M. Dench, (orally) Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, Auburn, for plaintiff.
Ronald P. Lebel, (orally) Peter B. Dublin, Rocheleau, Fournier & Lebel, Lewiston, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, and COLLINS, JJ.
On August 23, 1991, the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Cole, J.), acting pursuant to the Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. §§ 401-410 (1989 & Supp.1990), ordered the City of Lewiston and its Chief of Police to provide the Lewiston Daily Sun (the "newspaper") documents or excerpts revealing the identity of the police officer who fired shots injuring a Lewiston resident on August 13, 1991. On appeal we vacate that order. At the current stage of the ongoing disciplinary and criminal investigations of the shooting incident, the City's records from which the newspaper seeks information are declared confidential by two other statutes that read directly on the present fact situation. See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2702(1)(B)(5) (Pamph.1990) (municipal employee personnel records); 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1)(A) (Supp.1990) ("Criminal History Record Information Act").
On August 13, 1991, the Lewiston police were called to the Tall Pines apartment complex in response to a reported domestic disturbance. There, in a confrontation with a Tall Pines resident, Michael Roy, the police fired two shots, seriously wounding Mr. Roy. The Attorney General, the Maine State Police, and the Lewiston Police Department undertook a criminal investigation of the whole incident, as well as an internal affairs disciplinary investigation of the conduct of the police officers involved in it. The newspaper has had access to the police log providing basic information about the incident. The City, however, denied the newspaper's request pursuant to the Freedom of Access Act for identification of the specific officer who fired the shots, on the ground that the records of the ongoing investigations are rendered confidential by other statutes. The newspaper promptly filed a complaint in the Superior Court appealing that denial pursuant to section 409 of the Freedom of Access Act and seeking access to the investigative records to the extent necessary to identify the officer. The court gave the parties an expedited hearing as provided by section 409. The parties submitted the case to the court on an evidentiary record consisting of the affidavit of an official of the newspaper and the affidavit of the Lewiston Chief of Police. That evidence established:
The identity of the officer who fired the shots which struck Mr. Roy is contained solely within the documents and materials which relate to either the criminal investigation which is ongoing in connection with the incident in question, or the internal affairs investigations conducted by the Lewiston Police Department and the Office of the Attorney General with regard to complaints or allegations that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.
The Superior Court, without making express findings of fact, held that the newspaper was entitled to the requested information under the Freedom of Access Act. The City promptly appealed. At the newspaper's request, we have given the City's appeal an expedited hearing.
In the circumstances here presented, the legislature has provided that the newspaper has no right of access to the records of the City containing the requested information. The newspaper's rights under the Freedom of Access Act are limited by the exception stated in the Act for any records declared confidential by other statutes. First, section 402(3)(A) of the Act, in defining the "public records" that must be open to public access, expressly excepts "[r]ecords that have been designated confidential by statute." Moreover, section 408 giving "every person ... the right to inspect and copy any public record" commences with the limiting language: "Except as otherwise provided by statute." Pursuant to that twice-stated exception to the Freedom of Access Act, two other statutes, which relate specifically to the records of municipal employee disciplinary investigations and of criminal investigations, prevent the City from releasing the records.
The first of those special statutes that control this appeal is 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2702, a section entitled "Personnel Records" appearing in a subchapter of the municipal laws entitled "Municipal Employment." Section 2702 reads in pertinent part as follows:
1. Confidential records. The following records are confidential and not open to public inspection. They are not "public records" as defined in Title 1, section 402, subsection 3. These records include:
....
B. Municipal records pertaining to an identifiable employee and containing the following:
....
(5) Complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mainetoday Media, Inc. v. State
...the one hand, and the public interest in protecting the integrity of criminal investigations... on the other.” Lewiston Daily Sun v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 619, 622 (Me.1991). We consider, for the first time, the public disclosure of information transmitted through E–9–1–1 calls by eval......
-
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Dept.
...not be open to public inspection, a remedy must be sought with the legislature. See City of Grand Forks; Lewiston Daily Sun v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 619, 622 (Me.1991) ("It is the function of the legislature, and not of the courts," to resolve "the conflict that exists between the publ......
-
S. Portland Police Patrol v. S. Portland
...about or concerning municipal employees, unless disciplinary action is imposed. 30-A M.R.S. § 2702(1)(B)(5); Lewiston Daily Sun v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 619, 621 (Me.1991). The section excepting those municipal employee records from public disclosure provides, in pertinent 1. Confident......
-
Fairfield v. Me. State Police
...if at all, until a final written decision relating to disciplinary action is issued. Id. § 7070(2)(E) ; cf. Lewiston Daily Sun v. City of Lewiston , 596 A.2d 619, 621 (Me. 1991).8 The provision relating to disciplinary action exempts only records relating to potential or actual disciplinary......