BANGOR, Maine — A Maine Superior Court judge will decide whether five activists can get access to copies of files the Maine State Police may have on their activities or whether their request under the state Freedom of Access Act is denied because it fits into the exceptions allowed for law enforcement.
Megan Gilmartin of Thorndike, Hilary Lister of Athens, Ethan Miller of Greene, Emily Posner of Montville and Robert Fish, formerly of Montville, sued the Maine State Police last year in Penobscot County Superior Court after the agency denied their request for information.
The Maine Attorney General’s Office, which represents the state police, in January filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Deputy Attorney General William Stokes argued that under the law enforcement exemptions to the Freedom of Access Act, the state police could neither confirm nor deny whether the five were under investigation.
Maine Superior Court Justice William Anderson will hear arguments in the case today. There is no timetable under which he must issue a decision.
The plaintiffs, who have been involved in nonviolent civil protests over the Iraq war and the use of Sears Island, among other activities, according to their attorney Philip Worden of Northeast Harbor, claim they have a right to see files about themselves.
“It is disingenuous for the Maine State Police to state that they can neither confirm nor deny that they have files on at least some of the appellants in this case,” the plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, said Monday in an e-mail answer to a request for comment on the case. “A few years ago, for example, state police went to the homes of a number of activists requesting DNA samples. Likewise, the license plates on the cars of some of these appellants have been photographed by law enforcement. If they’re not keeping records on them, why are they putting so much effort into monitoring them?”
Stokes said in his motion to dismiss that if the information the plaintiffs requested did exist, it would fall under one or more of the 11 exceptions to a freedom of access request outlined in the Maine Criminal History Record Information Act. The release of information about any of the plaintiffs could, he argued, jeopardize a pos-sible investigation and prejudice a potential jury pool.
“Further, given the fact that intelligence and investigative information must, of necessity, rely upon evidence provided by individuals, there is a strong likelihood that public release could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as endanger the physical safety of individuals, including, but not limited to, law enforcement officers,” Stokes argued. “Finally, there is a reasonable possibility that the release of intelligence and investigative information publicly would disclose techniques and procedures not generally known to the public.”
Both sides have suggested that Anderson could view any documents that might exist in state police files that relate to the plaintiffs and decide what, if any, portion of that information they are entitled to see.