Crites v. Lewis & Clark Cnty. by and through County Attorney

Citations: 444 P.3d 1025; 2019 MT 161; 396 Mont. 336Docket: DA 18-0372

Court: Montana Supreme Court; July 16, 2019; Montana; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court affirming the First Judicial District Court's denial of Connie Crites's Petition for Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI) related to the estate of her brother, John Michael Crites. The appeal arose from an order refusing the Estate's request for the release of Crites's investigative file, which was sought to aid in a civil wrongful death action and to defend against an ongoing lawsuit wherein Crites had been accused of threatening his neighbors. 

John Michael Crites had been reported missing in June 2011, and his dismembered remains were discovered later that year, though no charges were filed in his murder. Following his death, Connie Crites was appointed as the personal representative of his Estate. In January 2018, the Estate requested the release of the investigative file, but the County Attorney denied this request, citing ongoing investigations and potential jeopardization of prosecution.

The Estate subsequently filed a Petition in District Court, requesting an in camera review of the CCJI and the release of relevant information under seal. The County opposed this, emphasizing that the investigation was active and that releasing the information could compromise it. The District Court ultimately denied the Petition, stating that under Montana law, CCJI cannot be released if it could jeopardize an active investigation.

The court reviewed the applicability of the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979, which restricts the dissemination of CCJI to specific entities and under certain conditions, confirming that the District Court acted correctly in its interpretation of the law by refusing to conduct an in camera review.

CCJI encompasses criminal justice information, confidential records, and other unspecified criminal justice data. Individuals or organizations may file actions regarding the dissemination of CCJI they believe is permissible. Under Section 44-5-303(2), MCA, prosecutors can disseminate CCJI to victims if they determine it won't jeopardize ongoing investigations. A district court must balance the 'right to know' with the 'right to privacy' during in camera reviews of CCJI, requiring the requesting party to initially show legal entitlement to the information. If successful, the burden shifts to the State to prove that privacy rights outweigh public interest in disclosure. The Estate petitioned for access to CCJI from Crites's investigative file, claiming entitlement under the Montana Constitution and Section 44-5-303(6), MCA. The County indicated that releasing CCJI could jeopardize their investigation, submitting an affidavit supporting this claim. The District Court ruled that Section 44-5-303, MCA, did not permit releasing the information based on the prosecutor's concerns. It interpreted Section 44-5-303(2) to mean that if privacy is favored or if the prosecutor believes dissemination would jeopardize an investigation, the information cannot be released. However, the court's conclusion was deemed incorrect, as Section 44-5-303(2) allows prosecutors to share CCJI with victims without needing court authorization if it won't jeopardize an investigation. This section serves as an exception to the restrictions in Section 44-5-303(1), MCA, and does not permit prosecutors to override the district court's authority in granting dissemination requests from victims. Such an interpretation would create an inconsistency where a victim could be denied access to CCJI while others could obtain it through court orders.

The District Court's conclusion that 44-5-303(2), MCA, prohibits the release of Criminal Justice Information (CCJI) based solely on the prosecutor's claim that it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation was incorrect. The matter requires further analysis regarding whether an active criminal investigation negates the necessity for an in camera review or the balancing of the 'right to know' against the 'right to privacy' outlined in 44-5-303, MCA. Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution guarantees the public's right to access documents from state bodies, unless individual privacy concerns outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. However, this right is not absolute and requires careful consideration of constitutional intent, which is derived from the clear language of the provision and the historical context in which it was drafted.

The court has established a presumption that public documents are open to inspection, yet recognizes that this presumption can yield to broader societal interests, such as the integrity of government operations. Notably, the Framers of the Montana Constitution intended for the 'right to know' to coexist with existing legal privileges related to government proceedings, particularly concerning CCJI. The court has previously indicated that public disclosure of law enforcement materials tied to ongoing investigations could harm law enforcement functions.

The Estate argues that any request for CCJI necessitates an in camera review to balance transparency and privacy. However, they acknowledge that Section 44-5-303(5), which mandates such a review, does not apply to their case, as it pertains only to concluded criminal investigations. Instead, the Estate seeks release of CCJI under 44-5-303(6), claiming that this also necessitates an in camera review. The court disagrees with this interpretation.

An in camera review of Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI) under 44-5-303(6), MCA, is not mandated by the statute, although it may be appropriate depending on the case's circumstances. Unlike 44-5-303(5), MCA, which explicitly allows for in camera reviews for terminated criminal investigations, 44-5-303(6), MCA, provides an alternative procedure that does not require the imposition of 44-5-303(5)'s protocols. The District Court's reliance on 44-5-303(2), MCA, to deny the release of CCJI based on the prosecutor's concerns about jeopardizing an ongoing investigation was incorrect; however, it was necessary for the court to consider those concerns. The balancing of public rights against police power is crucial, particularly regarding ongoing investigations, as public access to law enforcement files could severely impact their effectiveness. The District Court did not err in refusing the Estate's request for an in camera review before denying access to CCJI, as the evidence supported the County's claim that releasing the information would jeopardize their active investigation into a murder that remains unsolved since 2011. There is no statute of limitations on homicide, and the Estate did not dispute the ongoing status of the investigation. While the District Court's reasoning was flawed, the outcome was correct, affirming the need to protect the County's investigative interests. Consequently, the court's denial of the Estate's Petition for CCJI release is upheld.