Vermont Supreme Court reverses in camera review of images of CP by newspaper

In Rutland Herald v. City of Rutland, 2012 VT 26, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision concerning the Public Records Act. The court had ordered disclosure of certain documents to a newspaper and in camera review of possible images of child pornography in an investigation of a city police officer.

The Herald had obtained a copy of a search warrant showing that pornography had been viewed on police department computers. An officer had been placed on administrative leave, and the newspaper discovered that the officer had allegedly viewed child pornography. The Herald sought related records under Vermont's Public Records Act, and unable to acquire them, they filed a lawsuit.

The trial court found that the records from the investigation should be released as the investigation was complete, and review of the records "allowed the people to determine if the police department was properly managed." Additionally, names of the officers and suspension dates were not redacted as suggested by the city. The 121 images of possible child pornography, however, were not disclosed but could be reviewed by The Herald "in chambers with its counsel and a law enforcement expert present. The court did not identify the purpose of such review, nor did it cite any legal authority in support of its decision to allow the Herald to view these documents."

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed with respect to most of the documents. On remand, the trial court was to examine more closely certain exceptions to the Public Records Act and possibly order redaction. Because there is "no legal basis for" the in camera viewing of the images of child pornography by the newspaper and there is "no support for this approach in the PRA," the viewing was also reversed.