R.I. Supreme Court denies Journal request for Caleb Chafee police reports

THE R.I. SUPREME COURT has upheld a decision by the Superior Court, denying The Providence Journal Co.'s request for public records in connection with a 2012 party at then-Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee's Exeter property involving underage drinking. Chafee's son, Caleb, was later charged. Col. Steven G. O'Donnell, state police superintendent, denied requests from the newspaper for public records involving Chafee's son, citing privacy reasons. / COURTESY R.I. STATE POLICE
THE R.I. SUPREME COURT has upheld a decision by the Superior Court, denying The Providence Journal Co.'s request for public records in connection with a 2012 party at then-Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee's Exeter property involving underage drinking. Chafee's son, Caleb, was later charged. Col. Steven G. O'Donnell, state police superintendent, denied requests from the newspaper for public records involving Chafee's son, citing privacy reasons. / COURTESY R.I. STATE POLICE

PROVIDENCE – The state Supreme Court on Monday affirmed an earlier judgment of the Superior Court that said documents relating to a state police investigation of an underage-drinking incident at former Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee’s Exeter property involving his son are not subject to public disclosure.
The Providence Journal Co. had filed suit against the R.I. Department of Public Safety nearly four years ago in Providence County Superior Court alleging violations of Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act after unsuccessfully requesting records from the state police and department about the incident. It appealed the Superior Court’s determination that the documents are not public record to the Supreme Court.
“After careful consideration of the submitted memoranda and oral arguments, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court,” the Supreme Court opinion stated.
The 16-page ruling from Associate Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia upholds the previous decision from Associate Justice William E. Carnes Jr.
“At oral argument, the Journal posed the following question: ‘[I]s there a good reason the people shouldn’t see what the state police did?’ We answer that question in the affirmative. Pursuant to the [Access to Public Records Act], records need not be disclosed where such disclosure could create an unwarranted invasion of privacy – here, Caleb’s privacy interest created a barrier that the public interests in disclosure as asserted by the Journal could not overcome,” the Indeglia decision stated.
At issue was a May 28, 2012 incident in which Caleb Chafee, son of the then-governor, hosted a party at their Exeter property during which some underage attendees drank alcohol.
At some point, an underage female left the party and was taken to a local hospital for alcohol-related illness, prompting a state police investigation. Caleb Chafee was charged with the furnishing or procurement of alcoholic beverages for underage persons, a charge to which he later pleaded no contest in August 2012, receiving a $500 penalty. On March 13, 2013, a district court judge granted his motion to expunge his record.
According to the decision, the Journal in June 2012 requested copies of state police reports about the incident from Col. Steven G. O’Donnell, state police superintendent and commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, saying it was a public report and “it’s in the public interest to know how the situation was handled regarding the governor’s son – especially since the state police answer directly to the governor. This is a matter of transparency.”
The request was denied that same month from the R.I. Department of Public Safety, which cited the ongoing criminal investigation as well as an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Three other tries by the Journal to obtain the information from the state Department of Public Safety were denied.
“Finding no relief from this preliminary out-of-court skirmishing, on Oct. 22, 2012,” the Journal filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging violations of the state’s Access to Public Records Act, U.S. Constitution and R.I. Constitution, the decision stated.
The decision stated that the “Journal has not pointed to a shred of evidence to suggest that the ‘investigative agency or other responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly.’
“When the release of sensitive personal information is at stake and the alleged public interest is rooted in government wrongdoing, we do not deal in potentialities – rather, the seeker of information must provide some evidence that government negligence or impropriety was afoot. Because the Journal failed to provide any such evidence, the public interest can, at best, be characterized merely as an uncorroborated possibility of governmental negligence or impropriety,” it continued.

No posts to display