The name of the city police officer involved in a child pornography probe will be made public Friday barring appeal.
A day after Rutland District Court Judge Thomas Zonay redacted the name and identifying information related to the officer from documents related to the investigation, the judge said Wednesday in a decision there was no legal basis to continue keeping the officer's identity from the public eye.
"In sum, the court simply cannot find that the privacy issues advanced … are such that they can be found to be exceptional circumstances which provide a basis for sealing the name and identifying information of the target," Zonay wrote in his six page decision.
However, Zonay didn't immediately release the name, instead giving the officer until 1 p.m. Friday to file an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court. The officer's attorney, Matthew Harnett, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Robert Hemley, a lawyer for the Rutland Herald, which sought the release of court documents related to the investigation, said Wednesday that Zonay's decision reached a balance in preserving the rights of access for the press and the public and what privacy rights exist for the officer in question.
"By giving time for an appeal, the judge is giving an opportunity to have the decision reviewed if the individual disagrees with it," Hemley said.
On Tuesday, Zonay released more than 30 pages of documents related to a search warrant executed at the police department in September. Those documents described an investigation that started in August after state police discovered more than 150 images of suspected child pornography on a computer issued to the officer.
Additional images, discs, DVDs and VHS tapes of adult pornographic material and suspected child pornography were obtained through execution of a search warrant at the department on Sept. 22, 2009.
Zonay redacted the name and identifying information about the officer after hearing arguments Tuesday from a lawyer representing the officer, who was identified in court only as "John Doe."
Regarding the potential damage to the officer's reputation, the judge concluded that the potential stigma for the officer was not significantly different from what any other subject of a criminal investigation would face.
"The issue for the court is whether there are 'exceptional circumstances' specific to this case. … The circumstances and impact advanced by counsel are not exceptional. Rather, they are typical for any search pertaining to the underlying subject matter. Indeed, a stigma and impact may be expected to attach in any case where a warrant is executed, irrespective of the nature of the crime being investigated."
No comments:
Post a Comment