108 A.3d 1257
Me.2014Background
- In 2013 Phillip M. Bowler Sr. requested the Attorney General’s 1953 investigative file on the death of Sally Moran under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA); request was denied as statutorily confidential.
- Bowler appealed to Superior Court under 1 M.R.S. § 409; the court denied the appeal and Bowler’s motion for reconsideration; Bowler appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
- Section 200‑D (pre‑1995) had declared all Attorney General investigative records confidential; it was repealed in 1995 and replaced by the IIRIA, but an unallocated provision (P.L. 1993, ch. 719, § 11) preserved confidentiality for records that were confidential under former § 200‑D when created.
- The Moran file was created in 1953; the Court applied Dunn & Theobald, which held § 200‑D applies retroactively to records created before § 200‑D’s 1976 effective date, and concluded § 11 preserved the file’s confidentiality.
- The State had provided a copy of the file to the decedent’s grandniece (Martha Wolfe); the Attorney General argued this dissemination was authorized under an IIRIA exception for victims or their agents (immediate family) and did not waive statutory confidentiality as to the public.
- Bowler also asserted equal protection violation from the file being given to Wolfe but not to him; the Court rejected this claim because Wolfe is not similarly situated (she is family) and the distinction is rationally related to legitimate state interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Moran file remains confidential despite repeal of former 5 M.R.S.A. § 200‑D | Bowler: § 11 should be read to preserve confidentiality only for files created during 1976–1995, not pre‑1976 (creates a "donut hole") | State: § 11 preserved confidentiality for records that were confidential under § 200‑D when created; Dunn establishes retroactive application to pre‑1976 files | Held: § 11 preserved confidentiality for the 1953 file; confidentiality continues (affirmed) |
| Whether dissemination to a family member waived statutory confidentiality | Bowler: Giving the file to Wolfe waived confidentiality and opened it to public disclosure | State: Exception in IIRIA permits dissemination to victims or their agents (immediate family); disclosure to Wolfe was authorized and did not waive statutory confidentiality generally | Held: No waiver — disclosure to Wolfe fell within the family/victim exception and did not relinquish statutory confidentiality for others |
| Whether giving the file to Wolfe but not Bowler violated equal protection | Bowler: He was intentionally treated differently without rational basis | State: Wolfe is an immediate family member; statute reasonably distinguishes family access from public access | Held: Equal protection claim fails — Bowler and Wolfe are not similarly situated to an "extremely high degree"; distinction rationally related to legitimate interest |
| Whether § 11 was implicitly repealed or temporary | Bowler: § 11 was unallocated/temporary and effectively superseded by later statutes (IIRIA) | State: Repeal by implication disfavored; § 11 and IIRIA can operate in harmony (pre‑ and post‑1995 records) | Held: § 11 remains effective; not repealed by implication and not merely temporary |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn & Theobald, Inc. v. Cohen, 402 A.2d 603 (Me. 1979) (held § 200‑D applied to Attorney General investigative records whenever created, i.e., retroactively)
- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP v. State Tax Assessor, 86 A.3d 30 (Me. 2014) (FOAA statutory construction reviewed de novo; burden on agency to justify denial)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon, N.A. v. Re/Max Realty One, 91 A.3d 1059 (Me. 2014) (waiver defined as voluntary relinquishment of a known right; standard for inferring waiver)
- In re D.P., 65 A.3d 1216 (Me. 2013) (equal protection framework and rational‑basis review described)
- Snyder v. Gaudet, 756 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2014) ("class of one" claims require extremely high degree of similarity to comparator)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (recognition of "class of one" equal protection theory)
- Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Liberty, 845 A.2d 1183 (Me. 2004) (repeal by implication disfavored; statutes should be read in harmony when possible)