Supreme court continues consideration of public access to policerecords
Posted by djgsoe on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
In its April decision, the Vermont Supreme Court reiterated theearlier Rutland Herald ruling that documents from any police agencythat pertain to a criminal investigation are forever exempt fromaccess under the Public Records Act St.Louis Rams NFL-T-Shirt wholesale
a criminal charge bringsthem into the public arena. The court then distinguished betweenrecords related to an employee disciplinary investigation involvingcriminal acts (such as possible possession of child pornography),which would be categorically exempt from public access, and recordsrelated to a non-criminal employee disciplinary matter (such aspossible misuse of office computers by viewing otherwise lawful butworkplace-inappropriate material). The latter would fall under aseparate Public Records Act exemption dealing with personnelrecords, and be subject to a balancing test that weighs thesubject s privacy interests against public oversight benefits. The Rutland Superior Court had evaluated the document request underthis balancing test as employee disciplinary records rather than asrecords of a criminal investigation.
The Superior Court haddetermined that the public interest in reviewing the actions of theRutland City Police Department outweighed any minimal privacyinterest city employees may have had in viewing pornography onpublicly owned computers, and allowed public records access to thedocuments. Justice Paul Reiber, writing for the Rutland Herald II majority,reversed the Superior Court s ruling and remanded the case to theRutland Superior Court for a determination as to whether therecords requested had ever been part of an investigation intocriminal actions. A Rutland Superior Court hearing on this questionis scheduled for May 16, according to Attorney Robert Hemley ofGravel and Shea, who represents the Rutland Herald. Several of the requested documents became public when formerRutland City Police Detective David Schauwecker was chargedcriminally with neglect of duty for viewing pornography while onthe job. In July 2011, Schauwecker pleaded no contest to a singlemisdemeanor charge.
The documents which remain at issue relate toat least one other employee of the Rutland Police Department whowas investigated but not criminally charged. The Vermont ACLU,which did not participate in the Rutland Herald II case, expressed cautious optimism over the ruling, indicating that the SupremeCourt sent a clear message that not all records maintained by a lawenforcement agency are categorically exempt from public recordsaccess. The Kansas City Chiefs snapback cheap Court decision notes that the balancing test applicableto non-criminal discipline investigation records would not beapplicable to cases involving the Vermont State Police: The VermontLegislature has categorically exempted from public records accessall records of the office of internal investigation of thedepartment of public safety. Municipal police and countysheriff s department will need to subject non-criminaldisciplinary investigation records to the public-interest balancingtest under the ruling of Rutland Herald II, but similar internalreview of state police is not subject to any public records accessoversight whatsoever.
I am Industrial Fuel writer, reports some information about arcade game parts , tasco red dot. >.
oakley sunglasses aaa
The Superior Court haddetermined that the public interest in reviewing the actions of theRutland City Police Department outweighed any minimal privacyinterest city employees may have had in viewing pornography onpublicly owned computers, and allowed public records access to thedocuments. Justice Paul Reiber, writing for the Rutland Herald II majority,reversed the Superior Court s ruling and remanded the case to theRutland Superior Court for a determination as to whether therecords requested had ever been part of an investigation intocriminal actions. A Rutland Superior Court hearing on this questionis scheduled for May 16, according to Attorney Robert Hemley ofGravel and Shea, who represents the Rutland Herald. Several of the requested documents became public when formerRutland City Police Detective David Schauwecker was chargedcriminally with neglect of duty for viewing pornography while onthe job. In July 2011, Schauwecker pleaded no contest to a singlemisdemeanor charge.
The documents which remain at issue relate toat least one other employee of the Rutland Police Department whowas investigated but not criminally charged. The Vermont ACLU,which did not participate in the Rutland Herald II case, expressed cautious optimism over the ruling, indicating that the SupremeCourt sent a clear message that not all records maintained by a lawenforcement agency are categorically exempt from public recordsaccess. The Kansas City Chiefs snapback cheap Court decision notes that the balancing test applicableto non-criminal discipline investigation records would not beapplicable to cases involving the Vermont State Police: The VermontLegislature has categorically exempted from public records accessall records of the office of internal investigation of thedepartment of public safety. Municipal police and countysheriff s department will need to subject non-criminaldisciplinary investigation records to the public-interest balancingtest under the ruling of Rutland Herald II, but similar internalreview of state police is not subject to any public records accessoversight whatsoever.
I am Industrial Fuel writer, reports some information about arcade game parts , tasco red dot. >.
oakley sunglasses aaa