VIA EMAIL ONLY

June 1, 2023

Mr. Justin Santoro

Timothy A. Williamson, Esquire

Solicitor, Town of West Warwick

Dear Mr. Santoro and Attorney Williamson:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Justin Santoro (“Complainant”) against the Town of West Warwick (“Town”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Town violated the APRA with respect to one of Complainant’s allegations.

 First, Complainant alleges the Town provided an untimely response when the Town’s written denial of records was received by Complainant on April 8, 2023 via regular mail, outside of the ten (10) business day time period under the APRA. Next, Complainant contends that the denial letter was improperly signed by the Town’s legal counsel, Attorney Timothy A. Williamson, rather than the Town’s “APRA representative.” Finally, the Complainant alleges the Town’s denial of his request for the background investigation packet the Town compiled on himself was improper as there would be no invasion of privacy “as everything in the package is available to the public minus more or less SSN and credit information.”[1]

Attorney Williamson provided a substantive response on behalf of the Town, which included an affidavit from himself. The Town contends that Attorney Williamson’s letter denying the Complainant’s request was proper as Attorney Williamson is the Solicitor for the Town and “was acting on behalf of his client, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Custodian of the records of the Town of West Warwick.” Next, the Town maintains that its denial letter “was made on April 5, 2023 and postmarked April 6, 2023. Both dates fall within the 10-business day rule as provided by RIGL 38-2-3(e).” Finally, the Town argues that its denial of the Complainant’s request for the background investigation was proper pursuant to the cited exemptions of R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(b) and (D)(c) as well as this Office’s precedent as disclosure of the records would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The Town provided this Office with a copy of the Complainant’s background investigation for in camera review. Based upon our review, and without undermining the in camera nature of the same, the document consists of a Memorandum compiled by the Detective Bureau of the Town’s Police Department outlining an interview between a representative of the Department and the Complainant. The Memorandum contains references to and personally identifiable information about third parties, including minors, and Complainant’s employment and criminal history information.

We acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal wherein he emphasizes his personal interest in obtaining the records and his intention to pursue legal action if denied because he has been “IRREPARABLY HARMED by the documents in question.” (Emphasis in original).[2]

Here, it is undisputed that the Complainant made an APRA request to the Town on March 23, 2023 and did not receive the Town’s response until April 8, 2023, despite the same being dated April 5, 2023 and postmarked on April 6, 2023. It is further undisputed that the Town received the Complainant’s request on March 23, 2023; therefore, the Town was required to provide a response to the request by April 6, 2023. Although we recognize that the Complainant maintains he did not receive the mailed response until April 8, 2023, he does acknowledge that the same was dated and postmarked within the ten (10) business day time period following the Town’s receipt of his request. Whether this Office applies the April 5, 2023 response date or the April 6, 2023 postmark date, both dates represent a timely response by the Town within ten (10) business days of the receipt of Complainant’s March 23, 2023 APRA request. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a); Clark v. Department of Public Safety, PR 14-23 (finding DPS received the request on February 7, 2014 and the February 19, 2014 postmark date did not violate the APRA); Miller v. City of East Providence. PR 11-18 (“Based upon the March 28, 2011 receipt date, the City was required to respond to your request on or before April 11, 2011.”). Accordingly, we find no violation.[3]

In this case, the Complainant sought a “background investigation packet on self” compiled by the Town’s Police Department in connection with his application for employment. Law enforcement records involving specific identifiable private persons implicate personal privacy interests, particularly when no arrest takes place. See, e.g., Fund for Constitutional Government (“FCG”) v. National Archives and Records Service, 656 F.2d 856, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“There can be no clearer example of an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy than to release to the public that another individual was the subject of an FBI investigation.”)[4]; American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 7 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“disclosure of records revealing that an individual was involved or mentioned in a law enforcement investigation implicates a significant privacy interest,” particularly where the individual was never charged or convicted); see also Bernard v. Vose, 730 A.2d 30 (R.I. 1999) (holding that petitioner did not have a right, under the APRA, to review his own parole board files, which contained personal and sensitive information about him, because once the files were made public to him under the APRA, the files would then be available for inspection by the general public). Our in camera review of the requested records confirms that they implicate specific privacy interests and makes references to other private individuals, including minors. 

Although normally a person making an APRA request need not provide a reason for the request, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(j), the request at issue here implicates a specific individual’s privacy interests.  Accordingly, disclosure is only required if the public interest in disclosure outweighs those privacy interests.

The public has an interest in a document that “sheds light” on how government operates. See Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772-773 (1989).  The Complainant has not identified any public interest in the requested records and has not asserted that disclosure would shed light on the government’s operations. Neither do we discern an apparent public interest in disclosure of this record. Instead, the Complainant contends that he has a compelling personal interest in obtaining the record separate and apart from any public interest and he has been “irreparably harmed” by the Town’s denial.

Under the APRA, however, our sole function is to determine whether the requested document should be made available to the public at-large, not specific persons who assert a heightened personal interest in a document.  If this Office determines that a particular document is a public record, then any person may access or inspect that record regardless of whether that person is an interested party. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(a). Once a record is made public under the APRA, that record is public to all without any restrictions. We note that in Bernard v. Vose, 730 A.2d 30 (R.I. 1999), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not have a right, under the APRA, to review his own parole board files, which contained personal and sensitive information about him, because once the files were made public to him under the APRA, the files would then be available for inspection by the general public. For this reason, Complainant’s relationship to any particular person identified in the requested records and personal interest in obtaining the records cannot factor into our analysis. See, e.g., Greichen v. Narragansett Police Department, PR 23-13; Provost v. Narragansett Police Department, PR 22-02; Gagliano v. Narragansett Police Department, PR 21-14; Harper v. Portsmouth Police Department, PR 19-15; Gardiner v. Rhode Island Department of Public Safety, PR 19-08.

Accordingly, we conclude that the privacy interests implicated by disclosing this report outweigh any public interest and that the Town did not violate the APRA by denying the request.

Furthermore, the implicated privacy interests cannot be effectively quelled by redaction since the requested records relate to a specific identifiable individual and names other private individuals, including minors. See Pawtucket Teachers Alliance v. Brady, 556 A.2d 556, 559 (R.I. 1989) (“the report at issue in the present case specifically relates to the job performance of a single readily identifiable individual. Even if all references to proper names were deleted, the principal’s identity would still be abundantly clear from the entire context of the report.”).

Although this Office has determined that the Town did not violate the APRA by denying Complainant’s APRA request, we observe that the Complainant may have a personal interest in at least viewing the requested report. While we admittedly do not know all the facts and circumstances concerning the events memorialized in the requested records, we urge the Town to consider options outside of the APRA process for addressing both individual privacy interests and the Complainant’s personal interest in the records.  We also make no determination whether the Complainant may be able to obtain the requested report through other legal means as these issues are not before this Office and are outside our APRA jurisdiction.