136 A.3d 1168
R.I.2016Background
- On May 28, 2012, State Police investigated an underage-drinking incident at property owned by then‑Governor Lincoln Chafee; 186 pages of investigative records were compiled regarding his son Caleb.
- The Providence Journal (Milkovits) requested those State Police records; the Department of Public Safety denied the requests citing APRA exemptions for law‑enforcement investigatory files and privacy concerns.
- The Journal sued in Superior Court under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA); defendants provided a Vaughn index and the trial justice conducted an in camera review.
- The trial justice granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the Journal failed to show a reasonable belief of government impropriety and that disclosure would not advance the public interest; the Journal appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, applying a Favish framework that requires requesters to show evidence that would warrant a reasonable belief that government officials acted improperly before overcome privacy interests in law‑enforcement records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APRA requires disclosure of State Police investigatory files | Journal: APRA’s general disclosure rule covers these records; public interest in transparency regarding investigation of Governor’s family | State: APRA exempts law‑enforcement investigatory records where disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy | Held: APRA exempts these records because disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy under § 38‑2‑2(4)(D)(c) |
| Proper standard for balancing privacy vs. public interest | Journal: Favish standard is inapplicable; public interest includes both government impropriety and how the State Police enforce the Social Host Law | State: Favish applies; requester must show evidence warranting a belief of governmental impropriety to overcome privacy | Held: Court adopts Favish two‑step test and requires evidence that would warrant a reasonable belief of impropriety when privacy interest is implicated |
| Whether Journal met its burden to show government impropriety | Journal: Media attention, relationship between Governor and State Police, and charging/plea reduce privacy interest and justify disclosure | State: Journal offered only speculation about favoritism; no concrete evidence of negligence or impropriety | Held: Journal failed to provide evidence beyond speculation; did not meet Favish burden |
| Whether records (or redactions) would avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy | Journal: Identities can be redacted; public knowledge of charge reduces privacy weight | State: Redaction ineffective because context would identify Caleb; facts underlying investigation remain private despite public charge | Held: Redaction insufficient here; privacy interests (esp. Caleb’s) outweigh asserted public interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Justice v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (establishes two‑part test requiring significant public interest and evidence that disclosure will likely advance it to overcome privacy in law‑enforcement records)
- In re New England Gas Co., 842 A.2d 545 (R.I. 2004) (APRA interpretation and policy favoring disclosure balanced against privacy)
- Providence Journal Co. v. Sundlun, 616 A.2d 1131 (R.I. 1992) (discussing APRA’s disclosure policy)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. United States Department of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (recognizes substantial privacy interests in law‑enforcement records)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (distinguishes privacy weight between convictions/pleas and investigatory facts)