Judge Dismisses Crimson’s Suit

A Middlesex Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by The Crimson to gain access to detailed Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) crime reports in a decision released yesterday.

The suit, filed last July, argued that HUPD—whose officers are granted arresting powers by the Commonwealth of Massachussetts—should be subject to the law that requires officers and employees of the state to release information to the public. Justice Nancy Staffier ruled in the five-page report, dated March 8, that no facts could be marshalled to support The Crimson’s interpretation of that law in court.

According to Staffier’s ruling, HUPD officers are not closely enough affiliated with the government for their records to be made public.

“There is no dispute that Harvard University is a private institution and not a governmental institution,” Staffier wrote. “There is also no dispute that HUPD officers are employees of Harvard University...The mere fact that HUPD officers are given authority to perform certain functions by state and local police agencies does not make them officers or employees of a governmental entity.”

University General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano ’83 lauded the decision in a written statement yesterday.

“We have been confident all along that the law supported our position and appreciate the court’s ruling,” Iuliano wrote. “The University takes seriously its responsibility to balance the public’s interest in matters of public safety with the privacy interests of students and others in the Harvard community who regularly interact with the Harvard University Police Department.”

Crimson President Erica K. Jalli ’05 said the ruling gave insufficient attention to the state-granted arresting powers of HUPD officers.

“The fact that they’re given this authority is a big issue to us,” Jalli said. “To [Staffier], it’s a ‘mere fact.’”

And attorney Amber R. Anderson, who represented The Crimson in its suit, downplayed the fact that HUPD officers are not employees of the state.

“There’s a huge public policy reason to not draw that distinction,” she said. “The powers wielded by the Harvard University Police Department are just like those of any other police officers, and to draw that line based on where their paycheck comes from seems to me to be a slippery slope.”

Jalli said she would be consulting with counsel today to consider filing an appeal.

Anderson said The Crimson would probably be required to make an appeals decision within the next week, and that The Crimson would be back in court by the end of this summer if it chose to appeal.

Staffier’s opinion ends on a note of reserved support for the cause claimed by The Crimson’s suit.

“It appears to this court that the public importance of disclosing police records is just as high when the police officers at issue, although not state and local police officers, are authorized to perform and often do perform the same functions as the state and local police officers,” the judge wrote. “This, however, is a matter best left for the legislature to consider.”

Jalli and Anderson said they would consider the possibility of lobbying for revised legislation that would explicitly extend the public records requirements to organizations like HUPD.

“If the courts aren’t able to rectify what appears to be a flaw in the wording of the current statute, then lobbying the legislature to change the law is not only within The Crimson’s rights, but part of what our system of government is all about,” Anderson said.

Amit R. Paley ’04, who was president of The Crimson when the suit was filed last year, said the ruling to dismiss was premature. He said the decision deprived The Crimson of the chance to enter its evidence in a trial.

“The judge might have looked a little bit too far ahead of the game,” said Paley, who now sits on an advisory group formed by Iuliano to examine the issues raised by the suit.

But Paley expressed optimism for the future, citing prominent Massachusetts suits that have been dismissed in early stages but have gone on to win on appeal.

“The fact that this very lower-level judge happened to be a very strict constructionalist doesn’t mean it’s the end of the fight for records,” he said.

—Staff writer Simon W. Vozick-Levinson can be reached at vozick@fas.harvard.edu.