EDITORIAL: Judge must order DA to release records
Government officials do not have the discretion to decide which documents are public records and which ones are confidential. They cannot reject a request for public records based on what they think the documents might be used for. They cannot set a cap on the number of records requests a party can submit. They do not have the latitude to reject some records requests because they complied with others. And they certainly can’t tell news organizations whether to report on government documents or when they must stop reporting on those public records.
District Judge Susan Scann can emphasize as much today by ordering Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson to give the Las Vegas Review-Journal withheld records related to his office’s witness payment program, and by ordering his office to pay the costs incurred by this newspaper in taking him to court.
Nevada’s public records law exists specifically to prohibit such inconsistent, arbitrary attacks on open government, and to hold accountable government officials who want to block public scrutiny of their work. These officials must follow the law, which holds that, with precious few exceptions, all government records are presumed open and available for public inspection.
Unfortunately, when government officials ignore the public records law, the only way for a party to obtain compliance is to file suit.
In December, the Review-Journal did just that because Mr. Wolfson refused to fulfill the newspaper’s requests for information about his off-budget checking account for witness compensation. He provided some of the information the newspaper requested, but some records were not provided and others were heavily redacted, including case numbers, names of witnesses and the reasons for payments to them.
The newspaper has pursued the records because payments to prosecution witnesses could violate the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, and because Mr. Wolfson’s office apparently failed to inform some defendants that witnesses against them received compensation. The integrity of the valley’s criminal justice system is in question.
Mr. Wolfson’s response to the Review-Journal’s lawsuit claims the safety of witnesses who’ve received benefits from his office will be endangered if information related to those benefits and their identities are exposed. But, as Review-Journal attorney Maggie McLetchie notes in her reply, “most (if not all) of the persons at issue have already testified — in open court. Their names are part of the public record — and the persons they testified against would have been there. Once they testify, witnesses do not have the broad privacy rights urged by the District Attorney.”
Moreover, Mr. Wolfson’s response demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of Nevada’s public records law, saying the Review-Journal’s “stories have been written” and that it’s “troubling” that the newspaper hasn’t told him why the newspaper wants his office’s records. “What is in fact troubling — and deeply so — is the District Attorney’s mistaken belief that governmental agencies can refuse to comply with the Public Records Act on the basis that they do not see the value in the reporting regarding their practices,” Ms. McLetchie writes. “His position is incorrect, and is an anathema to the First Amendment and the important role the press plays in our system of checks and balances.”
The public records law “does not set limits on what the public may request,” she continues. “Instead, it works in exactly the opposite fashion: records are presumed public and the District Attorney bears a heavy burden in overcoming that presumption.”
Mr. Wolfson cannot do so. The public has a right to know whether his witness payment program might have compromised criminal prosecutions. Show the people their records.
