Legal Opinion

In re Essex Search Warrants

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 9, 2012No. 2011-228PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.

¶ 1. The State appeals from the Chittenden Criminal Division’s denial of its motion to seal search warrants and related materials generated during an ongoing investigation into a missing Essex couple. The court determined that the State failed to show with specificity, as required under In re Sealed Documents, that disclosure would cause “substantial harm to public or private interests.” 172 Vt. 152, 153, 772 A.2d 518, 521 (2001). The State asserts foundationally that there is neither a First Amendment nor a common law right of access to search warrant materials in an active, pre-arrest…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. In Re the Baltimore Sun Company v. The Honorable Clarence E. Goetz, United States MagistrateCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
  2. Times Mirror Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  3. Bull v. Pinkham Engineering Assocs., Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2000
  4. State v. TallmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1987
  5. In Re Sealed DocumentsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. Jayveon E. CaballeroSupreme Court of Vermont · 2022
  2. In re VSP-TK / 1-16-18 Shooting (Gray Television, Inc., Appellant)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  3. Jacob Oblak v. University of Vermont Police ServicesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  4. In re Essex Search WarrantsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
  5. Rivard v. StateVermont Superior Court · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API