Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rutland Herald v. Vermont State Police and Office of the Attorney General

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 30, 2012No. 2010-434Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dooley, J.,

¶ 41. concurring in part and dissenting in part. I

concur with the majority decision that 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5) exempts from public access executive branch records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime, even if the criminal investigation is complete. I think that result is required by the wording of the statute, irrespective of the policy arguments of the Herald. I also do not believe the statute, so construed, violates Article 6 of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution. I add only that the exemption appears overbroad and prevents public oversight of how law…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fielding M. McGehee III v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
  2. Cadc 79-12 the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. Griffin B. BellCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1979
  3. State v. TallmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1987
  4. In Re Sealed DocumentsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  5. LaChapelle v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945

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

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

Powered by the Exa API