Teper
v.
Providence Police Department
AGO PR 20-64
No. PR 20-64
Rhode Island Attorney General Opinion
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
October 21, 2020
Mr.
Adam Teper
Etie-Lee
Schaub, Esquire, Associate City Solicitor, City of Providence
Re:
Teper v. Providence Police Department
Dear
Mr. Teper and Attorney Schaub:
The
investigation into the Access to Public Records Act
(“APRA”) complaint filed by Mr. Adam Teper
(“Complainant”) against the Providence Police
Department (“Department”) is complete. For the
reasons set forth herein, we find that the Department did not
violate the APRA.
Background
and Arguments
The
Complainant submitted an APRA request to the Department
seeking “reports or investigations” filed
“on/against” himself by two specific private
citizens. The Department responded to the request by
indicating that it could neither confirm nor deny the
existence of responsive records for personal privacy reasons.
The Department stated that if responsive records did exist,
such records would be exempt from public disclosure in full
pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-2(4)(D)(c) and
that no reasonably segregable portion could be produced. The
Complainant appealed the Department’s response to
Commissioner Steven M. Paré, who upheld the
Department’s response. The Complainant subsequently
filed a Complaint with this Office alleging that the
Department violated the APRA “for refusing to
acknowledge or disclose public records and complaints made
about” himself.
Associate
Solicitor, Etie-Lee Schaub, Esquire, provided a substantive
response and affidavit on behalf of the Department. The
Department states that the Complainant “has not
articulated any public interest that would outweigh the
release of responsive records, if they exist. The basis of
his request and appeals, in fact, appears to be finding
information on claims or complaints filed by two individuals
against Complainant personally.” The Department also
notes that the Complainant did not seek arrest reports.
Finally, the Department maintains that if any responsive
documents did exist, they “could not have been
reasonably redacted” because Complainant
“requested information about complaints made by one of
two specific individuals against another person.”
We
acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal wherein he argues
that the APRA requires the Department to disclose whether the
requested records exist or do not exist. The Complainant also
states that the information he seeks is necessary because he
is involved in civil lawsuits involving the individuals
mentioned in his original APRA request.
Relevant
Law and Findings
When we
examine an APRA complaint, our authority is to determine
whether a violation of the APRA has occurred. See
R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8. In doing so, we must begin with
the plain language of the APRA and relevant caselaw
interpreting this statute.
The
APRA states that, unless exempt, all records maintained by
any public...
