Justice Giveth; Justice Taketh Away

Adjacent news items from the Web site of The Coalition of Journalists for Open Government offer in ironic illustration of public-access hypocrisy by the U.S. Justice Department. First comes the good news: The Justice Department has directed all federal departments and agencies that have an FOIA backlog to post a plan by Nov. 1 for reducing the backlog over the next three years. Here is the DOJ memo.

But no sooner does DOJ tell other federal entities to come up with plans for improving public access than it takes steps to cut off public access. CJOG points to Marcia Coyle's Sept. 17 report in the National Law Journal that DOJ has asked the federal judiciary to eliminate public Internet access to plea agreements in criminal case files and all related docket notations. Presently, these are available through the judiciary's PACER system.

The judiciary is seeking public comment on DOJ's request. Comments must be filed by Oct. 26. If you oppose further restrictions on public access to government information, make your voice heard by filing a comment.

N.H. court eases access to police records

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has issued a ruling that eases access to police investigatory records under the state's Right-to-Know Law. In the Dec. 20 opinion, Murray v. New Hampshire Division of State Police, Special Investigation Unit, the court held that the state police force had failed to meet its burden of showing that release of the requested records would interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The records request came from a Massachusetts man, Frederick J. Murray, whose daughter disappeared three years ago after her car was involved in a one-car accident in New Hampshire. Murray requested numerous records pertaining to the state's investigation of her disappearance, all of which were denied, save for a single, minor exception.

The Supreme Court said that the Right-to-Know Law should be interpreted "with a view to providing the utmost information." The law does not explicitly address police investigative files, so the court said that access should be decided using the six-prong test applied under the federal Freedom of Information Act. The trial court relied on the first prong of this test -- that production of the records "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings" -- but the Supreme Court found that the state had failed to show this. It therefore remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the state present more specific information on how disclosure of each record would meet this test.

Foster's Online has this report on the decision.