VIA EMAIL ONLY

January 6, 2026

Mr. Earl C. Stanton

Adam J. Sholes, Esquire

Dear Mr. Stanton and Attorney Sholes:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Earl C. Stanton (“Complainant”) against the Rhode Island State Police (“RISP”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the RISP did not violate the APRA.

The Complainant submitted a public records request to the RISP seeking all body-worn camera and dash camera footage of an arrest and booking that occurred on September 5, 2024.[1]

The RISP denied the Complainant’s request pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(S). The RSIP further informed him that the responsive records were exempt in their entirety and no portions were segregable.

The Complainant then submitted the instant Complaint to this Office. He asserts that the RISP’s “blanket denial of access to the requested footage lacks sufficient justification and does not meet the standards set forth under Rhode Island law.” The Complainant further asserts that the RISP improperly “invoked a general exemption without individualized analysis” and argues that RISP was required to cite to a specific federal law, state law, or court rule in its denial. (Citing Direct Action for Rights and Equality v. Gannon, 819 A.2d 651, 661 (R.I. 2003)). He additionally argues that courts have “rejected broad claims of confidentiality and required releasing police records with redactions as necessary.”

Finally, the Complainant asserts that he has a personal interest in the footage, and as such, “[he] is entitled to this information under the APRA.”

The RISP submitted a substantive Response to the instant Complaint through its Chief Legal Counsel Adam J. Sholes, Esq. The RISP asserts that it permissibly withheld the responsive video footage in its entirety pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(S) as such exemption permits the withholding of “[r]ecords, reports, opinions, information, and statements required to be kept confidential by federal law or regulation or state law or rule out court.” The RISP explains that the Complainant is seeking video footage related to an arrest following a traffic stop, however the criminal charge was later dismissed and the file was sealed by court order months prior to the Complainant’s APRA request being submitted. The RISP attached a copy of the court order which was entered in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1-12.1.

The RISP goes on to assert that Rhode Island Judiciary Rules of Practice do not permit even self-represented litigants and named parties to access their own sealed cases or documents. It further asserts that this Office has previously found that a public body may withhold expunged records even when the requester was seeking their own expunged records. It additionally notes that the Complainant’s personal interest in the footage is not relevant as he has no greater right to access the requested records than any other member of the public under the APRA.

The RISP further asserts that citing R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(S) in its denial was sufficient as nothing in the APRA required it to cite to both the exemption and a specific law or regulation. It also asserts that if it had specifically cited R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1-12.1 in its denial “it would have placed into public domain, via a letter, the fact that a criminal charge had been sealed.”

The RISP avers that the responsive video footage is required to be kept confidential by law because all records related to the  arrest and criminal charges were sealed by a court order in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1-12.1, which sets forth provisions for the sealing of criminal case records in certain circumstances.[2] Indeed, the RISP provided this Office with a court order from the underlying criminal case which states that “[i]n accordance with the provisions of G.L. 1956 § 12-1-12.1 … all records relating to the above-referenced case shall be sealed.” The Complainant does not contest that the responsive video footage is related to the underlying criminal case and covered by this court order. Accordingly, it is plain that the responsive video footage is required to be kept confidential in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1-12.1 and the order of the court in the underlying criminal case. C.f. Caldwell v. City of Providence, PR 22-13 (finding the City permissibly withheld responsive video footage as it related to expunged criminal records even though the requester was the subject of the video footage); Milkovits v. Cranston Police Department, PR 18-34 (noting the power of R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1-12.1 to require records be kept confidential). Therefore, the RISP permissibly withheld the responsive footage in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (S).[3]

The Complainant asserts that the RISP wrongly withheld the responsive video footage from him because he has a personal interest in the record. But the Complainant’s personal interest in the footage is of no consequence as “under the APRA you have no greater right to access the requested records than any member of the general public, regardless of whether you are the subject of the [requested material].” Walters v. Department of Public Safety, PR 11-38. We have explained that “if this [Office] determines that a particular document is a public record, then any person may access or inspect that record regardless of whether or not they are an interested party. For this reason, the fact that [a complainant] may be requesting records concerning [themselves or something in which they have a personal interest] is of no consequence to our analysis.” Id.; see Bernard v. Vose, 730 A.2d 30, 31 (R.I. 1999) (holding that no one has an “individualized right to review” public records related to themselves); see also McQuade v. Rhode Island State Police, PR 13-03 (“Accordingly, if this Department determines that a particular document is a public record, then any person may access or inspect that record regardless of whether or not that person is an interested party. Once a record is made public to one person under the APRA, that record is public to all.”).

Finally, the Complainant asserts that the RISP’s denial was inadequate under the APRA as it did not cite to the specific law that required the responsive footage to be kept confidential and only cited to Exemption (S). To support his argument, the Complainant provides a quote purportedly from the Rhode Island Supreme Court case Direct Action for Rights and Equality v. Gannon, 819 A.2d 651 (R.I. 2003), in which the Court appears to be holding that a public body “bears the burden of proving the applicability” of an exemption it cites. First, after our review of the cited decision, we are unable to locate the provided quote anywhere within the Court’s written decision. Second, it appears that the Complainant is conflating a public body’s duties under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a) and R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-10.[4] Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a), a public body need only provide a requester in writing with the “specific reasons for the denial.” The RISP’s citation to Exemption (S) in its denial of the Complainant’s request provided a specific reason for the denial in compliance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a). Although we encourage public bodies to provide as much detail and explanation as possible in their denials, this Office has consistently applied a flexible and practical approach that accords with the legislative decision in drafting the APRA not to impose extensive or detailed requirements for identifying withheld records and the reasons for withholding. See Finnegan v. Town of Scituate, PR 20-41 (finding that a denial of records did not violate the APRA even though it did not cite a specific exemption because its response “generally corresponds” with an APRA exemption and “nothing in the APRA requires a denial to cite a specific APRA exemption”); Piskunov v. City of Cranston, PR 16-41 (finding public body did not violate APRA when it denied access to the requested records by stating that the records were “private and confidential personnel and investigative materials”). Here, there is no question RISP satisfied the APRA’s requirement where it cited the specific exemption pursuant to which it was withholding the record.