215 A.3d 694
Vt.2019Background
- Jacob Oblak (pro se) sought access to an affidavit of probable cause and a court decision finding no probable cause in a criminal matter involving W.R.; clerks denied access and the civil division affirmed.
- The records were not sealed but were excluded from public access under V.R.P.A.C.R. 6(b)(24), which bars access to records filed to initiate a criminal proceeding when a judicial officer finds no probable cause.
- Oblak contended Rule 6(b)(24) was not intended to make traditionally public documents secret and raised a First Amendment right of access claim.
- The superior court applied historical/opening analysis and concluded petitioner failed to show historical public access to affidavits in cases where no probable cause was found; it denied access.
- The Supreme Court held the lower court erred by not considering V.R.P.A.C.R. 7 (exceptions procedure permitting access upon finding good cause and exceptional circumstances) and remanded for a Rule 7 proceeding with notice to interested parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 6(b)(24) precludes public access to affidavits of probable cause where a judicial officer found no probable cause | Rule 6(b)(24) should not convert traditionally public affidavits into secret records; Oblak sought access | Court/State relied on textual exclusion in Rule 6(b)(24) and policy reasons supporting non-disclosure | The exclusion applies but must be considered together with Rule 7; remand for Rule 7 analysis |
| Whether Oblak has a First Amendment right of access to the requested materials | Affidavits are traditionally public; First Amendment protects access | Historical analysis shows pre-indictment materials lack a tradition of openness; no compelled First Amendment access established here | Court declines to decide the constitutional question now; invites lower court to consider it on remand under Rule 7 |
| Whether the lower court should have used Rule 7 to evaluate access despite Rule 6(b)(24) | Rule 7 provides an exceptions process and must be applied when access is otherwise closed | Lower court treated Rule 6(b)(24) as dispositive and did not conduct a Rule 7 inquiry | Held: Lower court erred; remand for Rule 7 good-cause/exceptional-circumstances analysis with notice and hearing |
| Proper procedure on remand | Oblak requested documents directly and appealed; sought immediate disclosure | Court/State expect notice to parties and consideration of privacy, investigatory interests, and potential harm | Remanded: civil division must allow notice and hearing to state, affected person(s), and others as appropriate and assess competing interests under Rule 7 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sealed Documents, 772 A.2d 518 (Vt. 2001) (pre‑indictment search warrant materials not historically open; courts may deny access when necessary to protect interests)
- Greenwood v. Wolchick, 544 A.2d 1156 (Vt. 1988) (First Amendment access analysis considers historical openness and functional role of access)
- State v. Schaefer, 599 A.2d 337 (Vt. 1991) (affidavits of probable cause and suppression/dismissal contexts discussed)
- State v. Tallman, 537 A.2d 422 (Vt. 1987) (post‑probable‑cause sealing of affidavit addressed)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (historical tradition and functional importance underpin First Amendment right of access to criminal trials)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (framework for determining First Amendment access rights)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Eberharter, 713 P.2d 710 (Wash. 1986) (pre‑indictment materials historically closed; no First Amendment access)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) (refusal to recognize common‑law access to pre‑indictment materials without historical practice or strong public need)