N.H. high court limits access to police surveillance records

The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a lower court's decision to deny public access to specific information regarding the Dover Police Department's video surveillance system.

Dover resident David Montenegro filed the suit in January 2010 after the city denied parts of his Right-to-Know request, which sought information about exact locations of the city's surveillance equipment, the recording capabilities for each piece of equipment, the specific time periods the equipment is expected to be operational, and the retention time for any recordings.

According to the court, Montenegro pursued the information even after the city released a number of details including: acknowledging the capability to monitor cameras from a remote location, the intent of the police department not to monitor them on a regular basis, the cost of the equipment, when it was installed and who installed it.

As an initial matter, the court first found that an agency could rely on law enforcement exemptions in the state open records law by showing that records were "compiled for law enforcement purposes" rather than having to show that they are specifically "investigatory records."

The court went on to uphold application of an exemption relating to law enforcement records whose disclosure would reveal police "techniques and procedures" that could enable circumvention of the law.

"This information is of such substantive detail that it could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law by providing those who wish to engage in criminal activity with the ability to adjust their behaviors in an effort to avoid detection," the court wrote.

Dover Police Chief Anthony Colarusso said he is pleased with the opinion issued by the court. "I'm all for transparency, but not when it's going to compromise what we're trying to do to protect our assets in the city," he said.

As an example, Colarusso said a break-in would be much more likely if criminals knew when the surveillance system would be down for maintenance.

Colarusso said the department has not hid the fact that schools and some city buildings are monitored, a practice he believes the public supports. "The property belongs to the public, and it needs to be protected," he said.

City attorney Allan Krans said his office takes open government seriously, estimating that only one of about 100 information requests each year may be denied. "Our particular city has a very aggressive campaign to be as open and transparent as it can be," he said. "We very rarely deny any requests."

Krans added that his office handed over between 200 and 300 pages of documents related to the surveillance system to Montenegro, "only redacting what was absolutely necessary."

Montenegro, who represented himself, argued in his filing that the information he was seeking "did not interfere with enforcement proceedings, risk circumvention of the law or endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

Krans pointed to the general knowledge of camera locations at schools and city buildings as sufficient information to ease concerns about the surveillance. "It's not a situation where we have cameras on the streets monitoring what people are doing," he said.

Colarusso said the surveillance program has been in place for a number of years, but Montenegro was alerted to the issue when the city made purchases, which are public record, to perform upgrades.

Colarusso said Montenegro has been involved in "many issues" in Dover, and regularly protests alleged police corruption by himself in the downtown area.

The court did side with Montenegro on one issue, ruling that the city should turn over the job titles of those who monitor the surveillance recordings because the records do not include "internal personnel practices." In so holding, the court cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Milner v. Department of the Navy, which narrowly construed a similar exemption contained within the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Krans said a letter containing the requested job titles was sent out the day after the ruling.