This op-ed is by William Sorrell, the Vermont Attorney General.
During the several years of the police investigation of the sexual assault and murder of Patricia Scoville at Stowe’s Moss Glen Falls, nearly 1000 tips or leads led to the identification of scores of male “persons of interest”. These men were identified for reasons ranging from a history of sexually assaultive behavior to the fact that someone was known to hike in the area of the crime. The DNA of 86 different men was analyzed. Howard Godfrey was ultimately charged and convicted of having alone committed this horrible crime.
In this information age, should the public be apprised of the identities of those men who were ultimately exonerated? If the long list is released into this “viral” world, how many of these males or their families would be well-served to be known in cyberspace, no matter how justly or unjustly, as a former subject of investigation in a rape/murder?
There is much talk today about “transparency” and the appropriateness of reducing or eliminating government secrecy. It is entirely possible that the Legislature, come January, might consider the elimination of the current exception in the access to public records law of criminal investigative files. Should such discussion take place, I hope there will be thorough analyses of various reasons why the present state of the law might be reflective of sound public policy.
In arguably the same way that the confidentiality of one’s medical records is to protect personal privacy rather than to shield the work of health care providers, the confidentiality of criminal investigative files is designed to protect victims and the innocent rather than to shield the work of police and prosecutors from public scrutiny.
Perhaps a few other examples can be enlightening. Typically, a suicide triggers a criminal investigation – both to confirm that the death was in fact a suicide rather than a homicide and that no person violated current law by assisting in the suicide. Is the public interest served by the disclosure of the contents of a suicide note? What about evidence uncovered during the investigation concerning the actions and statements of the deceased to family and friends during the time leading up to the death?
What about death scene photos in suicide or homicide cases? Photographic evidence of the aftermath of domestic violence, child abuse or sexual assault? Most Vermont media do not publish the names or even the photographs or videotape of many crime victims. But these are voluntary examples of media discretion. Are we to believe that all citizens and organizations would exercise the same restraint? What about those so-called “shock sites” on the Web where gruesome photos of mutilated bodies at crime or accident scenes have been posted?
Would it be good public policy to disclose the names, addresses, job locations, schools and the like of crime victims and witnesses? Does the nature of the crime make a difference? Should it? Should suspected tax evaders receive more or less privacy protection than suspected shoplifters, drug abusers, pedophiles or cyber stalkers?
We all enjoy constitutional protections against being unjustly charged or convicted of criminal behavior. In a recent civil action, one Vermont newspaper sought the police files of the investigation of the existence of child pornography on the work and home computers of a former law enforcement official who committed suicide shortly after a search warrant was served at his home. The investigation found no evidence of child pornography on the computer of any other state employee at the Vermont Police Academy. Should the identities of those whose computers were analyzed and found to be innocent be publically identified? What about other personal or sensitive non-criminal information uncovered during the course of the investigation and appearing in the case files?
We live in a state and country in which we are innocent until proven guilty. Legislators should think long and hard before changing that equation.
