THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
STRAFFORD COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
JAMES NESBITT, III
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
94-E-013
FINDINGS, RULINGS AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the entire investigative file submitted by the New Hampshire Department of Safety to the Court for an in camera review following the hearing on March 13, 1995. The Court is persuaded that under RSA Chapter 91-A, those portions of the investigative file, as to which the State makes the assertion that the information is not subject to the Right-to-Know law, are exempt from disclosure. The State has identified certain portions of the records, as to which it asserts, that the records are exempt. As to the balance of the investigative file the State agrees to its disclosure. The State's claim is based upon the assertion that investigative techniques are described in these records, and that information therein may identify a confidential informant. See Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574, 576 (1978).
Plaintiff's argument that he knows the identity of the alleged informant, does not address the question of whether the plaintiff has a right to these records under the Right-to-Know law, or the State's suggestion that the records are exempt. In general, closed investigative files of law enforcement agencies are subject to the [2] Right-to-Know law. However, where an investigative file would identify a confidential informant, or reveal law enforcement techniques, the State may decline to make those records public, asserting an exemption under RSA 91-A. Id. Because the balance of the file is not in dispute, the Court orders the State to turn over to the plaintiff the entire investigative file in this case, with exempt portions thereof redacted. Because the Court finds that the State properly asserts an exemption as to these files, no award of attorney's fees is made. RSA 91-A:8.
The Court notes that in the event a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff may be able to assert a more compelling interest in the redacted portion of the file through the discovery process, as the Court can address the State's concerns about sources and techniques through the use of protective orders. Any such request, of course, would have to be analyzed in the context of any claim brought by the plaintiff. In this case, the Court is determining only that those portions as to which the State claims an exemption under RSA 91-A, are not required to be disclosed under the State's Right-to-Know law.
SO ORDERED.