The Providence Journal Company v. The Rhode Island Department of Public Safety, by and through Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Rhode Island Department of Public Safety and related defendants in an action under Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act. The court held that investigative records concerning an underage drinking incident were exempt from disclosure because release could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Adopting the framework from National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, the court held that a requester asserting government impropriety must present evidence warranting a reasonable belief that official misconduct may have occurred.

Holdings

1. When a requester seeks law-enforcement records protected by the APRA's personal-privacy exemption and asserts that disclosure would reveal governmental negligence or impropriety, the requester must produce evidence that would warrant a reasonable person's belief that the alleged governmental impropriety might have occurred; bare suspicion is insufficient.
2. The APRA permits withholding the investigative records because Caleb Chafee's substantial privacy interest in the contents and personal details of the investigation outweighed the Journal's unsubstantiated public interests in disclosure.
3. Redaction would not cure the privacy problem because, given the media attention surrounding the investigation, the subject of the records would remain readily identifiable even if identifying information were removed.
4. The court did not decide what effect Caleb Chafee's expungement order would have on disclosure because the records were properly withheld under the APRA based on the privacy exemption.

Questions Presented

1. Whether investigative records maintained by the Rhode Island State Police concerning an underage-drinking investigation were exempt from disclosure under the Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act because disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
2. Whether a requester asserting a public interest in exposing possible governmental negligence or impropriety must provide evidence warranting a reasonable belief that the impropriety might have occurred.
3. Whether the requested records could be disclosed through redaction or segregation of third-party identifying information.
4. Whether Caleb Chafee's public charge, nolo contendere plea, media coverage, or expungement substantially eliminated his privacy interest in the investigative materials.

Disposition

affirmed