http://www.courant.com/news/connect...ok-supreme-court-decision-20181023-story.html
Please involve Ghost Pussy.
The state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that more than 35 documents and journals belonging to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza will be released to the public, a key victory in the Hartford Courant’s five-year battle to obtain the information.
The Courant requested access to the documents that state police removed from the Yogananda Street home in Newtown where Lanza killed his mother Nancy Lanza before driving to the school and killing 26 people, including 20 first graders, before killing himself.
In a unanimous decision, the court ordered a lower court judge to reverse himself and deny the state’s appeal of a Freedom of Information Commission decision that ordered the items released.
“Since the day of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Courant has worked to advance the understanding of how so heinous a tragedy could happen and we applaud today’s decision as we feel these documents are necessary for us to tell a complete story in our reporting,” said Andrew Julien, the Courant’s publisher and editor-in-chief. “Understanding what a mass killer was thinking not only paints a clearer picture of the individual, it helps us identify and understand red flags that could be part of a prevention formula for future mass shootings.”
Supreme Court Justices Grill Attorneys In Sandy Hook Records Case »
The records were described in a state police report released a year after the school shooting. The Courant requested access to the records under the state's Freedom of Information Act, but police declined to release them.
The newspaper filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission and won, but the state police appealed to Superior Court, where Judge Carl J. Schuman overruled the commission, setting up the Supreme Court battle.
Gunman Kills 26 At Sandy Hook School In Newtown »
In oral arguments before the court last March, an assistant attorney general representing the state police urged the court to keep the records secret, asking the justices to uphold the ruling of a Superior Court judge who declared the material was private property exempt from the disclosure mandates of Connecticut's public-records laws.
Assistant Attorney General Steven Barry told the justices that state laws governing seized evidence establish strict protocols for handling property taken involuntarily by search warrant, and said the legislature could not have intended the public to have "unfettered access" to the property, even when not used in a criminal action.
Lanza Had Arsenal Of Guns, Ammunition, Swords, Knives »
The legal question for the justices turns on whether the state's search-and-seizure laws supersede the Freedom of Information Act. But there is a practical element as well, with The Courant arguing that release of the records could help the public understand the ruthless attack on the elementary school, and the state police arguing that a ruling in The Courant's favor could expose financial records or a private diary.
During the hearing, several justices challenged Barry's assertion that the laws covering search warrants were in conflict with the Freedom of Information Act, with Acting Chief Justice Richard N. Palmer noting the seizure laws mainly cover the retention and disposition of evidence.
State police declined to release the documents, arguing that statutes covering search warrants treat the material as private property that may be used only for limited law-enforcement purposes. On that basis, the police pointed to a portion of the Freedom of Information Act that makes records subject to disclosure unless "otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute."
A photo of Adam Lanza's bedroom where state police recovered journals, computer records and other documents that have never been released to the public. (Uncredited / ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The Freedom of Information Commission rejected that argument, concluding that records may be withheld under that provision only if a competing federal or state law explicitly provides for the confidentiality of the records.
But that analysis was rejected in turn by Schuman, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute over what exactly the phrase "otherwise provided" means under Connecticut law.
The Courant requested access to the documents that state police removed from the Yogananda Street home in Newtown where Lanza killed his mother Nancy Lanza before driving to the school and killing 26 people, including 20 first graders, before killing himself.
In a unanimous decision, the court ordered a lower court judge to reverse himself and deny the state’s appeal of a Freedom of Information Commission decision that ordered the items released.
“Since the day of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Courant has worked to advance the understanding of how so heinous a tragedy could happen and we applaud today’s decision as we feel these documents are necessary for us to tell a complete story in our reporting,” said Andrew Julien, the Courant’s publisher and editor-in-chief. “Understanding what a mass killer was thinking not only paints a clearer picture of the individual, it helps us identify and understand red flags that could be part of a prevention formula for future mass shootings.”
Supreme Court Justices Grill Attorneys In Sandy Hook Records Case »
The records were described in a state police report released a year after the school shooting. The Courant requested access to the records under the state's Freedom of Information Act, but police declined to release them.
The newspaper filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission and won, but the state police appealed to Superior Court, where Judge Carl J. Schuman overruled the commission, setting up the Supreme Court battle.
Gunman Kills 26 At Sandy Hook School In Newtown »
In oral arguments before the court last March, an assistant attorney general representing the state police urged the court to keep the records secret, asking the justices to uphold the ruling of a Superior Court judge who declared the material was private property exempt from the disclosure mandates of Connecticut's public-records laws.
Assistant Attorney General Steven Barry told the justices that state laws governing seized evidence establish strict protocols for handling property taken involuntarily by search warrant, and said the legislature could not have intended the public to have "unfettered access" to the property, even when not used in a criminal action.
Lanza Had Arsenal Of Guns, Ammunition, Swords, Knives »
The legal question for the justices turns on whether the state's search-and-seizure laws supersede the Freedom of Information Act. But there is a practical element as well, with The Courant arguing that release of the records could help the public understand the ruthless attack on the elementary school, and the state police arguing that a ruling in The Courant's favor could expose financial records or a private diary.
During the hearing, several justices challenged Barry's assertion that the laws covering search warrants were in conflict with the Freedom of Information Act, with Acting Chief Justice Richard N. Palmer noting the seizure laws mainly cover the retention and disposition of evidence.
State police declined to release the documents, arguing that statutes covering search warrants treat the material as private property that may be used only for limited law-enforcement purposes. On that basis, the police pointed to a portion of the Freedom of Information Act that makes records subject to disclosure unless "otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute."
A photo of Adam Lanza's bedroom where state police recovered journals, computer records and other documents that have never been released to the public. (Uncredited / ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The Freedom of Information Commission rejected that argument, concluding that records may be withheld under that provision only if a competing federal or state law explicitly provides for the confidentiality of the records.
But that analysis was rejected in turn by Schuman, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute over what exactly the phrase "otherwise provided" means under Connecticut law.
Please involve Ghost Pussy.
Last edited by a moderator:
