Introduction

Annie Le, a 24-year-old Yale University graduate student, disappeared from a campus laboratory on September 8, 2009. Her disappearance sparked intense national interest, with news organizations from across the country descending on New Haven to cover the search. The media frenzy was so great, the New Haven Independent reported, that an NBC producer was trampled and injured in the crush leading up to a police briefing.

Le was found dead on Sept. 13, the day she had planned to be married, inside the wall of the university building where she was last seen. A medical exam found that she had been asphyxiated. Police arrested Raymond J. Clark III, a lab technician at the school, four days later. But, due to leaks from law enforcement and the fact that he had been named a “person of interest” in the murder, Clark had already been the subject of intense public scrutiny. Even before Clark was arrested, his identity was widely known and angry protesters reportedly stood outside his house.

While leaks and rumors swirled, key information was missing from the coverage of the murder. Nine search warrants and an arrest warrant were kept secret by a Connecticut judge for weeks. The same was true of the affidavits attached to the warrants, which disclosed the probable cause to search Clark’s residence, collect his DNA, and arrest him. Under Connecticut law, the court was able to keep the warrants and related materials under seal.

For weeks after the searches were conducted and Clark was arrested, both his lawyers and state prosecutors fought to keep the information sealed. The Hartford Courant intervened in the case on Oct. 6, 2009, opposing the efforts to renew the seal on the warrants and related material. Two weeks later, the New Haven Register, The Associated Press and The New York Times joined the Courant’s opposition.

Connecticut Superior Court Judge Roland D. Fasano unsealed the warrant materials on Nov. 6, 2009, more than seven weeks after Clark was arrested. Even then, he redacted “material that is inflammatory; material of significant import that is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant; and material that constitutes an invasion of privacy unnecessary to the public’s understanding of the criminal process.”

While the public scrutiny of the Le investigation is unusual, Judge Fasano’s restrictions on warrant access are not. Warrants, wiretaps, and related materials exist in the grey area between law enforcement and court records. They are authorized by a judicial officer, but generated and held for some time by the police before they are ultimately filed in court. Because of this — as well as concerns for the integrity of ongoing investigations, defendants’ rights, and privacy — it is often unclear what materials must be released to the public and how long courts can wait before doing so.

This guide will discuss the law governing access to search warrants, arrest warrants, wiretaps, and related materials. This includes the First Amendment and common-law presumption of access to court records, as well as the rules courts have set governing when warrants and related materials are made available to the public.