BARRINGTON - A Rhode Island Superior Court judge ruled that the Barrington Police Department cannot maintain a policy that keeps secret the names and addresses of crime victims because that policy is offensive to both the letter and spirit of the state's Access to Public Records Act.
Judge Stephen Fortunato issued a summary judgment in favor of the Barrington Times last Tuesday, Aug. 24, after hearing arguments in a case which began in February. The Barrington Times and its parent company, East Bay Newspapers, filed suit against the police department and the Town of Barrington after a string of burglaries took place Feb. 11 and Feb. 13.
Police Chief John LaCross released information about the burglaries, including an appeal to the public for information that might help solve the crimes, but he refused to release the names of the homeowners where the burglaries were alleged to have occurred or the specific street addresses where the crimes were alleged to have occurred. Chief LaCross told the reporter on what streets the alleged crimes occurred, but he did not divulge specific house numbers because he feared the paper would use that information to discover the names of the homeowners. This was consistent with the police chief's unwritten policy, enacted in almost all cases, of keeping crime victims and their addresses secret from the public.
In their defense, Chief LaCross and the town's attorney, Michael Ursillo, relied upon a clause in the public records act which states that public bodies may withhold certain information if its release would reasonably be considered "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
During his argument in court, Mr. Ursillo said, "After a person has been burglarized, to now match up the name and address with everything that's been taken from that house, lifelong heirlooms, jewelry, etc. ... If that's not personal privacy, if that is not an invasion, I don't know what else it would be."
The judge disagreed with the town in two key areas. First, he said criminal acts in this country, though personal events for the victims, are crimes against the community. "A criminal act, in our jurisprudence, has long been held, for 300 or 400 years, to be an attack on the entire community," Judge Fortunato said. Thus, if a burglar is captured, the government prosecutes that burglar, not the victim. "We're talking about a public event here when a crime is committed," he said.
Secondly, Judge Fortunato said the town's unwritten policy prevents journalists or anyone else from scrutinizing the actions of the police department. "Without that information ... the press becomes merely a conduit for the police," Judge Fortunato said. "It may well be that the police are doing all that they possibly could do to address this situation. However, if the paper came across someone who complained of a perfunctory way in which they were being treated, or that they had given a lead that the police are not following up on — that would certainly not be the first time that a witness or victim to a crime had that complaint ... the point is, the police are to be subjected to scrutiny, just as are all public officials."
He later said, journalists are supposed to "investigate and report and reach conclusions that will let the citizens make informed judgments about whether or not their police department is functioning properly. Maybe they'll end up giving the police department kudos for ... doing things the right way, or they may end up, as happens with some police departments, with people outside with signs protesting police conduct or misconduct."
Interviewed Tuesday morning, Chief LaCross said the town has not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling, but he plans to amend his policy immediately. " I was disappointed, but I will honor of court's ruling," the chief said. "I think it's unfortunate that a victim in the town of Barrington can become publicized, and I think it's an invasion of their personal privacy."
Editor's note: Some direct quotes for this story were taken from a transcript of the court proceedings.
