Montenegro v. City of Dover, 162 N.H. 641

Petitioner Montenegro sought from City of Dover detailed disclosure about surveillance equipment: precise locations, recording capabilities, operation periods, recording retention, and monitor job titles.
City denied some information as potentially revealing law enforcement techniques and procedures; disclosed general locations, count, remote monitoring intent, non-regular monitoring plan, costs, vendors, installation contracts, and installation dates.
A Vaughn index accompanied the City’s nondisclosure at the March 26 hearing, and the trial court found exemptions applicable to precise locations, capabilities, operation periods, retention, and internal personnel practices for monitor job titles.
Trial court applied Murray v. NH Department of Safety, using an amended FOIA test, and held exemptions (A), (E), and (F) apply; job titles were exempt as internal personnel practices.
On appeal, Montenegro contends FOIA is not controlling, NH Constitution Article 8 imposes higher standards, and various disclosure arguments; City contends disclosure would risk circumvention and endangerment; Court reviews de novo; ultimately, information is exempt under Murray (A,E,F) for locations, capabilities, timing, retention, while job titles are not exempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Murray governs NH 91-A disclosure analysis	Montenegro argues FOIA-like analysis not controlling; Murray test should not apply	City argues Murray test governs and supports withholding	Murray test governs; analysis aligned with NH 91-A framework
Whether precise locations and technical details are exempt under Murray (A/E/F)	Disclosure would not interfere with enforcement or risk circumvention	Details could aid circumvention and reveal techniques	Exempt under Murray (E) and (F); disclosure risks circumvention of the law
Whether the job titles of monitor personnel are exempt as internal personnel practices	Job titles are within public records; not internal personnel practices	Job titles fall under RSA 91-A:5, IV internal personnel practices	Job titles not an internal personnel practice; reversed in part as to this item
Constitutional/privacy and standing issues	NH Constitution Article 8 requires greater public accountability; privacy concerns	No standing due to lack of direct private use; constitutional claims undeveloped	Constitutional claims not addressed beyond standing; dispositive privacy issues resolved under Murray

Murray v. N.H. Div. of State Police, 154 N.H. 579 (2006) (amended 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) framework for law enforcement records)
Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574 (1978) (FOIA test guidance for police investigatory files)
Union Leader Corp. v. Fenniman, 136 N.H. 624 (1993) (internal personnel practices exemption interpretation)
N.H. Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. 437 (2003) (exemption analysis and privacy considerations in public records)
Milner v. Department of the Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (2011) (Exemption 2 limits on internal personnel rules and practices; interpretation impact)
Lamy v. N.H. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 152 N.H. 106 (2005) (FOIA guidance for public utility regulatory records)
Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. United States Dept. of the Interior, 730 F. Supp. 2d 180 (2010) (surveillance technique details may risk circumvention of law)
New York Civil Liberties Union v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 771 F. Supp. 2d 289 (2011) (location of surveillance devices can be disclosable or not depending on circumvention risk)
Lewis-Bey v. United States Department of Justice, 595 F. Supp. 2d 120 (2009) (FOIA details on surveillance techniques )