Rutland Herald v. Vermont State Police and Office of the Attorney General, 49 A.3d 91

In Jan 2010, Vermont State Police opened a criminal investigation into employees of the Criminal Justice Training Council after VDHR reported possible misconduct and suspicious material on a trainee’s computer; McMullen, a trainee, committed suicide the next day and police also investigated his death.
The VSP assembled files, including inquest-related material, and referred them to the Attorney General for prosecutorial review, which declined to prosecute others.
In July 2010, Rutland Herald sought disclosure of the criminal and death investigation files from the VSP and the AG under the PRA; the agencies denied, citing § 317(c)(5) and, for inquest materials, § 317(c)(1) as confidential by law.
The superior court granted summary judgment for the State after in camera review, holding the records are records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime and that the inquest materials are confidential by law.
The Herald appeals, arguing for a time-based or balancing approach to § 317(c)(5) and asserting that the inquest materials should be publicly accessible; the State maintains a blanket exemption applies regardless of time since investigation’s end.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §317(c)(5) excludes crime-detection records from public disclosure permanently	Herald seeks disclosure based on completion of investigation.	State argues §317(c)(5) is a blanket, time-insensitive exemption.	Exemption is permanent; no time-based limit.
Whether §317(c)(5)’s management proviso applies to inquest records	Provision should allow disclosure when records concern agency management/direction.	Proviso does not apply to these investigation records.	Proviso does not apply to the records here.
Whether the PRA constitutional under Article 6 requires disclosure	Article 6 mandates transparency of government actions.	Article 6 is not self-executing and PRA is consistent with it.	Article 6 is not self-executing; PRA interpretation does not violate Article 6.
Whether inquest records are judicial or executive and how that affects access	Herald argued inquest records are judicial and should be accessible.	Majority ruling treats records as exempt under PRA; PACR issues not reached.	Not central to the decision; records fall under PRA exemption.

Walton v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 154 Vt. 15 (1990) (discussions on the nature of investigative records and products of investigation)
Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union H.S. Dist. No. 27, 160 Vt. 101 (1993) (balancing privacy interests under 1 V.S.A. § 315 not applied to § 317(c)(5))
Williams v. Superior Court, 852 P.2d 377 (Cal. 1993) (investigatory files exemption not time-limited; kept confidential after investigation)
In re Sealed Documents, 172 Vt. 152 (2001) (disclosure considerations for search warrant records; informs PACR considerations)
In re D.L., 164 Vt. 223 (1995) (inquest records as judicial power; contextual framework for privacy/access)