MaineToday Media, Inc. v. State of Maine
2013 ME 100
| Me. | 2013Background
- On Dec. 29, 2012 three E‑9‑1‑1 calls related to the Pak shooting in Biddeford were recorded and transcripts prepared. MaineToday requested those transcripts from various state and local agencies in January 2013.
- The State (through the Attorney General) denied the requests, asserting the transcripts were "intelligence and investigative information" confidential under the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), 16 M.R.S. §§ 611–623.
- The Superior Court conducted an in camera review and upheld the State’s denial. MaineToday appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
- Key statutory framework: FOAA (1 M.R.S. §§ 400–414) generally requires disclosure of public records; the Emergency Services Communication statute (ESC, 25 M.R.S. §§ 2921–2935) makes E‑9‑1‑1 audio recordings confidential but provides that information in recordings is public if disclosed in transcript form after redacting certain "confidential information"; CHRIA (16 M.R.S. § 614) bars dissemination of "intelligence and investigative information" when disclosure creates a reasonable possibility of enumerated harms.
- The State argued the transcripts, even if redacted under the ESC, are confidential under CHRIA because they were compiled and maintained by law‑enforcement in connection with an active homicide investigation.
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded, holding the State failed to meet CHRIA’s "reasonable possibility" burden and ordering disclosure of the transcripts redacted per 25 M.R.S. § 2929(2)–(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E‑9‑1‑1 audio and transcripts are public records under FOAA | FOAA requires disclosure of public records; ESC already makes transcripts public (with limited redaction) | Transcripts are "designated confidential by statute" under CHRIA and thus exempt from FOAA | Court: Transcripts are public records under FOAA after required redaction under ESC unless CHRIA bars disclosure (court reached CHRIA analysis) |
| Whether ESC requires disclosure of transcripts but not audio; scope of redaction | Transcripts (with redaction of names, addresses, phones, medical info) must be disclosed per 25 M.R.S. § 2929(4) | State argued redaction infeasible or insufficient to protect investigation | Court: ESC distinguishes audio (confidential) from transcripts (public); redaction required and appropriate under § 2929 — transcripts are disclosable after redaction |
| Whether transcripts qualify as "intelligence and investigative information" under CHRIA (compiled or collected) | MaineToday: transcripts originally created for non‑law‑enforcement purposes and ESC contemplates disclosure | State: even if originally administrative, law enforcement compiled/transferred them in the course of investigation, making them CHRIA protected | Court: Transcripts were "compiled" by law enforcement for investigation and thus qualify as intelligence/investigative information under CHRIA’s definition |
| Whether the State showed a "reasonable possibility" disclosure would cause harms in § 614(1)(A)–(K) | MaineToday: State must show particularized, non‑speculative risk; absent that, CHRIA exception fails | State: disclosure of transcripts in an active homicide prosecution risks interfering with proceedings and investigation; therefore confidentiality warranted | Court: State failed to show a particularized reasonable possibility of harm (its assertions speculative and generalized); therefore CHRIA did not bar disclosure; ordered disclosure with statutorily required redactions |
Key Cases Cited
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (holding that information originally compiled for non‑law‑enforcement purposes can be exempt when recompiled for law enforcement) (U.S. Supreme Court)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (rejecting blanket presumptions of confidentiality; requiring particularized showing) (U.S. Supreme Court)
- Blethen Me. Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 871 A.2d 523 (Me. 2005) (discussing FOAA standards and CHRIA objectives)
- Campbell v. Town of Machias, 661 A.2d 1133 (Me. 1995) (recognizing ways disclosure can interfere with law enforcement and supporting particularized showing by prosecutor)
- Citizens Commc’ns Co. v. Attorney General, 931 A.2d 503 (Me. 2007) (FOAA’s exceptions construed narrowly)
- Anastos v. Town of Brunswick, 15 A.3d 1279 (Me. 2011) (statutory interpretation principles under FOAA)