Commonwealth v. George W. Prescott Publishing Co.
463 Mass. 258
Mass.2012Background
- Commonwealth and O’Connell petitioned under G. L. c. 211, § 3 to review impoundment of a redacted search warrant affidavit.
- Affidavit contained the complainant’s name and statements about alleged criminal conduct by O’Connell, a real estate developer.
- District Court initially impounded materials after warrant execution, then redacted identifying information before public release.
- Prescott sought access in civil and criminal contexts, arguing search warrant materials are presumptively public and no good cause for continued impoundment.
- Two criminal charges against O’Connell were filed shortly after; Prescott intervened to challenge impoundment and the civil case was dismissed.
- Judge ultimately held § 97D does not apply to judicial records and that no good cause existed to keep the affidavit impounded, releasing a redacted copy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 97D apply to search warrant affidavits? | Petitioners contend § 97D extends to court records containing rape reports. | O’Connell argues § 97D protects confidential police reports and applies to those records. | § 97D does not apply to search warrant affidavits. |
| Was there good cause to keep the affidavit impounded? | Public access should be limited to protect privacy and trial fairness. | Impassioned concerns of prejudice require continued impoundment. | No; the judge properly balanced interests and released a redacted affidavit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218 (2004) (presumptive public access to search warrant materials after return)
- Newspapers of New England, Inc. v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Ware Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 403 Mass. 628 (1988) (public access to judicial records; impoundment principles)
- Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593 (2000) (impoundment balancing factors; public interest vs. fair trial)
- New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business, 462 Mass. 76 (2012) (impoundment procedures; tailoring scope to facts)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (public access to judicial proceedings; blanket bans rejected)
- Jancey v. School Comm. of Everett, 421 Mass. 482 (1995) (Legislative intent must be explicit to modify public access)
- Kettenbach v. Board of Bar Overseers, 448 Mass. 1019 (2007) (public records vs. judicial records distinction)