Crimson Lawsuit

A Middlesex Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit in March filed by The Harvard Crimson that sought to make the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) release detailed crime reports to the public.

This decision came after almost a year of legal proceedings and discussion, including the exchange of legal briefs and the formation of a committee designed to evaluate the privacy policies of HUPD.

The Crimson has argued that because HUPD officers are special state police officers deputized in Middlesex and Suffolk counties, they should be subject to the records law, which stipulates that records produced by public agents be available upon request.

But in a brief filed in September by the University, Harvard concluded that HUPD reports do not qualify as public records although the officers who created them are endowed with “quasi-governmental powers” and that Harvard, the institution that employs the officers, is private.

The Crimson submitted its own brief opposing Harvard’s motion, claiming that Harvard misunderstood the crux of the original argument. The brief reiterated that although Harvard remains a private institution, its individual officers may still act as governmental agents.

In October, against the backdrop of the lawsuit, the University organized a committee of students, administrators and an outside expert to evaluate HUPD’s privacy policies and recommend changes. The committee’s final report, released on June 1, recommended that HUPD provide more detailed information in its police logs but continue to limit access to incident reports. The report also called for HUPD to release aggregate statistics about suicides and attempted suicides.

In a hearing on Feb. 23, Harvard’s attorney reiterated the argument that the open records law pertains only to records “that reside in the custody of governmental agencies.”

As a result of that hearing, Justice Nancy Staffier ruled in a five-page report, dated March 8, that HUPD officers are not closely enough affiliated with the government for their records to be made public and that there were “no facts” to support The Crimson’s interpretation of the law. She noted in the ruling that legislation reform—not a lawsuit—would be more likely to change the system.

“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.”

In response to the decision, The Crimson’s attorney Amber R. Anderson said in March, “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.”

Crimson President Erica K. Jalli ’05 said the The Crimson plans to appeal the decision late this summer with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“It gives us a lot of time to prepare,” Jalli said. “I’m going to be speaking to the ACLU of Massachusetts a lot this summer so that we feel more confident going into the appeal.”

—Staff writer Hana R. Alberts can be reached at alberts@fas.harvard.edu.