VIA USPS AND EMAIL ONLY

October 15, 2026

PR 26-35

Mr. Allen J. Hanson

Brenda D. Baum, Esquire

Deputy Chief Legal Counsel

Rhode Island Department of Corrections - Office of Legal Counsel

Re: Hanson v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Dear Mr. Hanson and Attorney Baum:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Allen J. Hanson (“Complainant”) against the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“RIDOC”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the RIDOC violated the APRA.

Background and Arguments

The instant Complaint, dated August 30, 2025 but received by this Office on September 8, 2025, stated the following:

“[The RIDOC is] Not Answering My Outstanding Requests A Variety of Requests seeking CCTV so I Am Requesting A Complaint & Investigation into This Please Request from Them A Copy of All The Pending & Unanswered CCTV Requests … These CCTV I Am Requesting Are Related to The DLeft Urine Testing Incident In wich I felt My Rights were Violated And Now I Am Also Asking for CCTV Video of the library containers were My Evidence file is Placed (sic) [.]”

The RIDOC provided a substantive Response through its Office of Legal Counsel. With this substantive Response, the RIDOC provided several exhibits, including documents reflective of the APRA request at issue and the RIDOC’s underlying APRA response.[1] The RIDOC avers that in response to this request, it initially extended the time to respond as is permitted by the statute. In a subsequent response, dated August 13, 2025, the RIDOC produced a list of the second shift correctional officers who were on duty at the medium security facility on July 21, 2025. The RIDOC concedes that in denying the request for CCTV footage it “inadvertently did not identify the provisions of [the APRA under] which [the] CCTV footage requested by Complainant is exempt from [public] disclosure” but that this “failure … was an inadvertent error made in good faith.” Nevertheless, the RIDOC contends that the requested CCTV footage is non-public for a litany of reasons, and as such is exempt from disclosure under the APRA pursuant to exemptions (A)(I)(a), (A)(I)(b), (D), (F), (P), and (S). The RIDOC included with its substantive Response an affidavit executed by its Deputy Chief Legal Counsel attesting to the facts set forth therein.[2]

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 body shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect and/or to copy such records. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(a). The APRA exempts from public disclosure records that reflect “[s]cientific and technological secrets and the security plans of military and law enforcement agencies, the disclosure of which would endanger the public welfare and security.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(F).

The contention that the public disclosure of video footage captured from cameras located at a sensitive facility could implicate security concerns finds support in federal law.^{^[3]} In Ford v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that bank surveillance video footage was not subject to disclosure under the FOIA and that “[t]he FBI’s decision to withhold bank surveillance footage … [was] proper” because “[e]ven if some cameras are ’visible’ as a deterrent, other cameras may be placed at angles or in areas unknown to the public and disclosure of this information could … ‘provide criminals the necessary information to circumvent the very purpose of a bank surveillance system.’” See Ford v. Department of Justice, 208 F.Supp.3d 237, 254 (D.D.C. 2016); see also New York Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Homeland Sec., 771 F.Supp.2d 289, 292 (finding that “although it is publicly known that the [agency] uses cameras … the specific locations of those devices are unknown, and their disclosure could unquestionably aid criminals in evading detection and thereby circumventing the law … [e]ven if the location [o]f some cameras might be publicly knowable, the uncertainty concerning the other cameras is plausibly asserted to be a key component of their deterrent and disruptive effect”).[4]

This Office has regularly recognized that articulated concerns as to the security of certain facilities presents a valid basis for denying APRA requests seeking records that would reveal sensitive information that could compromise the security of those areas. See Farinelli v. City of Pawtucket, PR 24-30 (finding that the City permissibly denied a request for door logs of a police station under Exemption (F) “where there is at least some evidence that the disclosure of such information risks revealing potential vulnerabilities in the security plans of the substation and would make the targeting of specific officers or the substation itself easier”); see also Rhode Island Center for Justice v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, PR 23-58 (finding it permissible pursuant to Exemption (F) to withhold round logs from a prison that included information about what times the rounds started and ended because “disclosure of this information would undoubtedly endanger the security of the Department”).

In this instance, the RIDOC argues that release of the subject recordings “would reveal camera views and angles that may compromise safety and security if disclosed.” The Complainant has not disputed this assertion. The CCTV footage, therefore, is nonpublic in full pursuant to Exemption (F). See Patten v. City of Cranston, PR 24-49 (finding that a request for security camera footage was properly withheld in full due to “security concerns outlined by the City.”). [5]

We therefore find that the RIDOC’s withholding of the CCTV footage in its entirety was permissible under the APRA.[6] We nevertheless acknowledge that the RIDOC failed to affirmatively state any relevant exemptions in denying the Complainant’s request for CCTV footage, and for that reason we find that it violated the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7.

That said, in these circumstances, we decline to issue injunctive relief. As noted, normally any exemption not cited by a public body in its APRA response is waived absent good cause. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a). We do not find it efficient or necessary to seek further information and evidence from the RIDOC about its denial where it is apparent to us that multiple exemptions are applicable, and where we are disinclined to find waiver of those exemptions based on the multiple concerns raised. While the RIDOC failed to cite to any relevant exemptions, we would not find such a violation willful and knowing or reckless in these circumstances, where we have determined that security and privacy concerns were implicated and that the withholding was ultimately permissible. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d). See Caldwell v. Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, PR 21-24 (declining to find waiver on the part of the public body where it was “consistent with the language and purpose of the APRA to not pursue injunctive relief requiring the disclosure of records that the APRA clearly provides are exempt from the definition of public records.”); see also Patten v. City of Cranston, PR 24-49.

Conclusion

Upon a finding of an APRA violation, the Attorney General may file a complaint in Superior Court on behalf of the Complainant requesting “injunctive or declaratory relief.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). A court “shall impose a civil fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000) against a public body. . . found to have committed a knowing and willful violation of this chapter, and a civil fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) against a public body found to have recklessly violated this chapter.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d). For the reasons previously articulated, we find that injunctive relief would be inappropriate, and that the underlying APRA violation was not willful and knowing or reckless given these circumstances. See supra.

This finding serves as notice that the conduct discussed herein violates the APRA and may serve as evidence of a willful and knowing, or reckless, violation in any similar future situation. Going forward, the RIDOC should be careful to ensure that it cites to the appropriate exemptions in denying a request.

Although the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter, nothing within the APRA prohibits the Complainant from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). Please be advised that we are closing this file as of the date of this letter. [7]

We thank you for your interest in keeping government open and accountable to the public.

Sincerely,

PETER F. NERONHA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Adam D. Roach

Adam D. Roach

Special Assistant Attorney General

APRA

[1] The provided copy of the Complainant’s APRA request indicates that he sought the following: “A) [a] list of All 2nd Shift C/Os CAPTAIN’s LT’s THAT Worked At John J. Moran on 7/21/2025. B) All 7/21/25 2nd, Shift CCTV footage of D Left Block C) All CCTV footage of Committing Room And All Holding Cells D) All CCTV Footage INSIDE of Highside cell, That Housed [the Complainant] On The Night of 7/21/2025 (sic).”

[2] The instant Complaint also included an allegation that the Complainant “sent [the RIDOC] $17 for A old Request That They Quoted Me 16:50 And I sent it (sic).” The RIDOC states that it does “not have any knowledge of receiving a check from the Complainant in connection with any prior APRA [request]” but that it would “contact inmate accounts to ascertain whether [a] money transfer was sent by [the] Complainant … to the Legal Office and, take appropriate actions if payment was made.”

[3] We reference Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) caselaw because the Rhode Island Supreme Court has made clear that “[b]ecause APRA generally mirrors the Freedom of Information Act * * * we find federal case law helpful in interpreting our open record law.” Pawtucket Teachers Alliance v. Brady, 556 A.2d 556, 558 n.3 (R.I. 1989).

[4] This is particularly true in the case at bar, where the Complainant is not seeking footage from a specific camera but rather is seeking “All CCTV Footage.”

[5] We add that the record evidences that no reasonably segregable portion of the footage may be produced. See Leslie, et al. v. Coventry Police Department, PR 26-17 (holding that “redaction would be impractical, as … the footage is teeming with non-public information”). Even if redaction were feasible, the RIDOC states that it “does not have the ability to redact or blur individuals in the CCTV [footage].” See Nunes v. South Kingstown School Department, PR 22-40 (determining that the Department did not violate APRA by withholding a record in full when producing the record with redactions would have required the Department to obtain new, specialized technology beyond the standard blurring technology already available to it).

[6] While this Office would customarily conduct an in camera review of any withheld records, the scope of the Complainant’s request renders an in camera review infeasible and would pose an undue burden upon the RIDOC. The RIDOC represents that the requested footage encompasses coverage of “the cells, the day room, the showers, and other areas within that D Module” and is inclusive of the “full second shift, which would be approximately seven (7) hours of activity” (for each camera). (This is consistent with the plain words of the request). Even assuming it was feasible, we need not conduct an in camera review, as there is enough evidence on this record to establish that the CCTV footage is non-public in toto.

[7] We note the Complainant’s allegation that he provided the RIDOC with prepayment and it purportedly went unacknowledged. On this record, the RIDOC’s statement that “[t]here was no cost estimate provided with the instant APRA [request and] response” is undisputed. Additionally, the RIDOC has seemingly taken steps to resolve this payment issue in the interim. The Complainant is free to file a new complaint if he contends that the RIDOC violated the APRA in connection with the request that required prepayment, as referenced.