WPCP P\5j9f_v9\՘.hT[ {h# lY~Z'uj+OToM2!?v,rg\%Bf ~C P{Ärxf{xk[L8 qW}<Šs6o^sߛHoXN+ =|9F2G`#%_40/`1ge v }VVmz(x92 +=UJvScT2ȝiG14k(dզOl+ 0v", 0`, 0`, 0`X- 0`- 0`. 08x. 0. 02/ 0/ 0:0 0Y0 0_C1 0 1 0j2 04 B*5 D/5 D+5 06 D/7 07 068 08 0:9 0^: 0<u:U6:U>:U*%;U"8O; 0N;;; 1u= 1= 72> 72> 0 c> 1N? 72? 1 @ 72@ 1@ 72YA 1A 72B- JBmwKLLHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2$ !    =A|XXdd=    0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New RegularKs-s s]-6X?,}backup3|xUTABLE AL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $  =HDXXdd=    1    _ XHDXXXUltimately,thestatedroppedtheassaultchargesagainst  HatchafteraRhodeIslandFamilyCourtconcludedthattherewasno  probablecausetobelievethatthechildhadbeenabused.#XHDXX XHD#  $  =HDXXdd=    3    _InHatchI,RichardHatchbroughtsuitagainsttheRhode  IslandDepartmentforChildren,Youth,andTheirFamiliesandtwo  agencycaseworkers,seekingmonetarydamagesforallegedviolations \ ofhisdueprocessrighttouninterruptedcustodyofhischild.We 2 affirmedthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentfor X defendantsafterdeterminingthattheEleventhAmendmentbarred . Hatch'ssuitagainsttheagency,andthatthecaseworkerswere   entitledtoqualifiedimmunity.  DYCFR.I.G.L.PontbriandSundlun a]lldispositive I]t DCYFia]lthough W]eEnseyCulhaneD]efendants MaosCamiloAponteRoblesRinguetteHegartyInt'lPejepscotLaForce t]heBuenrostroCollazounpursuedA]ppellateCreightonLorangermisattributedStahlSwerdlick--ScheuerPubl'gMatos cmtKluthDep't*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7K(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SV\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7&  d dJ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7N(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SV\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7J)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<4 9Z+ Courier New (O$  $  =HDXXdd=    5    _XXHDXXXThe"department"referredtoin401113(a)isdefined  earlierinChapter11ofTitle40astheDCYF.R.I.Gen.Laws  40112.#XHDXXXXHD#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)( CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)](a)\i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)a(1)( CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)c(a)(CEMU]emu}AutoList4(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)e(A)( CEMU]emu}AutoList5(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)g(a) # $  =HDXXdd=    2    _WhenHatchoriginallysoughtredressinthedistrictcourt  under42U.S.C.1983forallegedviolationsofhisfederalright  toprivacy,thedistrictcourtexercisedsupplementaljurisdiction \ overappellant'spendentstatelawprivacyclaims.See28U.S.C. 2 1367(1993).WeretainjurisdictionoverHatch'sstatelaw X claimsonappealeventhoughHatchhasnotappealedhisfederal . privacyclaims.SeeUnitedInt'lHoldings,Inc.v.WharfHoldings   Ltd.,210F.3d1207,121920(10thCir.2000)("Thescopeofa   federalcourt'sjurisdictionalpower...doesnotfluctuatewith `  thefateofafederalclaimattrialoronappeal,butexistsif 6   thefederalclaiminitiallyhadsubstancesufficienttoconfer  \  subjectmatterjurisdictiononthe[district]court.").  2    TheTenthCircuitsubsequentlyobservedthat"[a]federal   claimisinsubstantial,andincapableofconferringjurisdiction,   onlyifitisobviouslywithoutmeritoriswhollyfrivolous,oris d  clearlyforeclosedbypriordecisionsoftheSupremeCourt."Id. :  at1220(internalcitationsomitted).Appelleesdonotarguethat `  thedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretioninexercisingsupplemental 6 jurisdictionoverHatch'sstatelawclaims,andourreviewofthe   recorddoesnotindicatethatHatch'sfederalprivacyclaimswere  sufficientlydevoidofmerittovitiatefederalsubjectmatter h jurisdictionoverHatch'sstatelawclaimsonappeal.See > PejepscotIndus.Park,Inc.v.MaineCent.R.R.Co.,215F.3d195, d 200(1stCir.2000)(notingthatstandardofreviewfor : supplementaljurisdictiondeterminationsisabuseofdiscretion). c $  =HDXXdd=    4    _TherelevantprovisionsofthesetwostatutesandtheRhode  IslandPrivacyStatutearereproducedintheAppendixattheendof  thisopinion.    $  =HDXXdd=    6    _Therearealsovagueandundevelopedreferencestounnamed  policeofficersinappellant'sbrief.Withregardtotheofficers  whoallegedlyreleasedHatch'smugshotandJohnDoe'sstatementto \ thepolice,wenotethatthedistrictcourt'sinitialgrantof 2 partialsummaryjudgmentleftopenthepossibilitythatHatchcould X proceedtotrialagainsttheseofficers.However,Hatch'sfailure . toprofferanyevidenceidentifyingtheofficersresponsiblefor   thereleaseofthesematerialsledthedistrictcourttodismiss   thiselementofhisclaimaswell,andHatch'sbriefcannotberead `  tochallengethisrulingonappeal. 6     !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XAXXXeXXA     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsPe  FortheFirstCircuit  oP XHDX o  A') ` dE< ` A   No.021053 u  @xx!RICHARDHATCH,JR., ! q @ Plaintiff,Appellant,    @tt)v. y    TOWNOFMIDDLETOWN; %u  FINANCEDIRECTORFORTHETOWNOFMIDDLETOWN; K  SHAWNJ.BROWN;FRANKKLUTH; ! BARRYSMITH;andDAVIDLEONARD,     `   Defendants,Appellees. S A') ` dE<` A % @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT     FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND f @*  [Hon.ErnestC.Torres,U.S.DistrictJudge] b NA') ` dE<` A  @'Before     @@((Torruella,CircuitJudge, O " B.Fletcher,*SeniorCircuitJudge, %!u# andLipez,CircuitJudge. !K$ A') ` dE<#` A #&       JosephR._Palumbo_,Jr.forappellant. $(   Marc_DeSisto_,withwhomKathleenM.Powerswasonbrieffor 8&!* appellees. '^"+ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $ b SI)n$. @Y@37578@Y@SNovember19,2002 )D%0  RHC*&1" @Y@37578 @Y@ R()n$2  (* !    ____________________ + '2   *Hon.BettyB.Fletcher,oftheNinthCircuit,sittingby ,'3 designation. |-(4? _     8HDXXdd8*,X` XX*kOY    ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .OnApril27,2000,Plaintiff  RichardHatchwasarrestedbytheMiddletown,RhodeIslandpolice x departmentandchargedwithassaultinghisadoptedson("John $t Doe"). #  1      ׀Therewasimmediatemediainterestinthearrestdueto   Hatch'simpendingtelevisionappearanceontherealitygameshow |  Survivorduringitspremierseason.Althoughthepoliceinitially ( x  releasedonlyaredactedcopyofHatch'sarrestreporttothe $  press,theNationalEnquirersoonprocuredHatch'sredactedmug   shotandacopyofhisson'sstatementtothepolice,featuring ,|  bothinanarticlepublishedonMay16,2000.Hatchsubsequently ( filedthis1983andstatelawactionagainsttheTownof  Middletown,ShawnJ.Brown,FrankKluth,BarrySmith,DavidLeonard 0 andotherunnamedpoliceofficersintheUnitedStatesDistrict , Court,claimingFourthAmendmentviolationsarisingfromafalse  arrestandviolationsofhisrighttoprivacyunderfederaland 4 statelaw. 0  ` Thedistrictcourtinitiallygranteddefendants'summary   judgmentmotioninpart,dismissingHatch'sFourthAmendmentclaim, 8!" hisconstitutionallygrounded42U.S.C.1983claim,andhisstate "4$ lawprivacyclaimsagainstalldefendantsexceptunidentified $& officers.WithrespecttotheclaimsagainstCaptainLeonardand <&!( LieutenantSmith,thecourtdeterminedthattheindividualpolice '8#* officerscouldassertqualifiedimmunitytoescapecivilliability  underRhodeIsland'sprivacystatute.Thecourtatfirstdenied \ defendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentonthestatelawprivacy X claimsagainstvariousunnamedpoliceofficerswhoallegedly   releasedHatch'smugshotandexcerptsofthestatementmadetothe `  policebyappellant'sson.ThejudgeissuedanOrdertoShowCause  \  whythecaseshouldnotbedismissedsincetheonlyremaining   defendantswereunidentifiedofficers.Hatchfailedtoanswerthe d  OrdertoShowCause,andthedistrictcourtdismissedthecase. `   ` Hatchnowappealsonlyhisstatelawprivacyclaims   againstCaptainLeonardandLieutenantSmith.i #  2      ׀Afterreviewingthe h record,weagreewiththedistrictcourtthatCaptainLeonardacted  reasonablyinthefaceoftwoconflictingstatestatutes,and \ furtherconcludethatHatchhasfailedtoestablishaclaimfor X violationofprivacyagainstLieutenantSmithunderRhodeIsland's   PrivacyStatute.Accordingly,weaffirmthedecisionofthe `  districtcourt.  \     I.BACKGROUND     ` TheeventsleadinguptoRichardHatch'sarrestarewell   documentedinHatchv.Dep'tforChildren,Youth&TheirFamilies ,|  (HatchI),274F.3d12(1stCir.2001). #  3      ׀Webrieflyrecountthem ( herebeforeturningtothepostarrestperiod.Onthemorningof  April27,2000,ateacherandnurseatJohn'selementaryschool 0 noticedthatJohnhadabumponhisforeheadandredmarksacross , hisneck.Johndisclosedthathehadsustainedtheinjuriesduring  anearlymorningrunwithhisfather.AccordingtoJohn,hewas 4 havingtroublekeepingthepacesetbytheappellant,causinghim 0 tofalltothepavement.JohnclaimedthatHatchreactedbyfirst   pullingtheboyupbyhisearlobeandthenforcinghimtodo 8!" pushupsbygrabbinghisneckandpushinghisheadintothecement. "4$ AfterhearingJohn'sstory,schoolofficialscontactedtheRhode  IslandDepartmentforChildren,YouthandTheirFamilies(DCYF)and \ theMiddletownpolice.TwopoliceofficersbroughtJohntothe X Middletownpolicestation,wherehewasinterviewedbyaDCYF   caseworkerandexaminedbyadoctor.Thepolicethencontacted `  Hatchandaskedhimtoreporttothepolicestation.Uponhis  \  arrivalhewasarrestedandchargedwithassaultinghisson.The   nextday,CaptainDavidLeonard,thePublicInformationOfficerfor d  theMiddletownpolice,redactedacopyofplaintiff'sarrestreport `  andreleasedittothemedia.Theinformationwithheldfromthe   reportincludedthemugshotoftheplaintiffandthe h identificationofthechild. d  ` OverthenextfewdaysCaptainLeonardfieldedrequests  fromthelocalandnationalmediaforHatch'sarrestreportand l arraignmentinformation.Aftertheinitialmediablitz,Lieutenant h BarrySmithreceivedacallfromtheNationalEnquirer.He  informedtheEnquirerthat"thebumpontheboy'sheadwasthesize p  ofanegg.Hehadredmarksonhisneckandotherbruises."AMay !l" 16,2000articlereportingHatch'sarrestincludedthiscommentas "$ wellasthemugshotwithheldfromhisarrestreportandlarge t$& excerptsofJohn'sstatementtothepolice.LieutenantSmith  &p!( deniedhavingreleasedthemugshotorJohn'sstatementtothe '#* NationalEnquirer.Althoughappelleesconcedethatthisrelease x)$, wasaviolationofdepartmentpolicy,Hatchofferednoevidenceto $+t&. implicateLieutenantSmithoranyotherMiddletownpoliceofficer  intheunauthorizedreleaseofthesematerials. \  ` Thedistrictcourtgranteddefendants'summaryjudgment X motionanddismissedHatch'sfalsearrestandprivacyclaims.In   thisappeal,Hatchchallengesthedistrictcourt'sbenchruling `  thatthetwopoliceofficerswereentitledtoqualifiedimmunity  \  giventheuncertaintyunderRhodeIslandlawastowhatinformation   concerningHatch'sarrestcouldbereleasedasapublicrecord: d  8 ` Thatwouldbeaverydifficultquestion `  becausethere'stwostatutesthatseemto 6 conflicthere....Giventhoseconflicting   statutesandgiventhefactthatMr.Hatch's  privacyrightunderRhodeIslandlawarises h fromastatutethatrequires,amongother > things,thatthefactbeaprivatefact,it d seemstomethatitistotallyunreasonable : andunrealistictoexpectthatareasonable  officer,underthesecircumstances,wouldhave  recognizedthatreleasingthisinformation l violatedsomerightofMr.Hatch'sif,in B fact,itdid.)h` x` x Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,  Kelleyv.LaForce,288F.3d1,4(1stCir.2002),andbeginour p  analysisbyexaminingtherelevantRhodeIslandstatutes. !l"   II.DISCUSSION  "$ U. A.TheDisseminationofArrestInformationUnderRhodeIslandLaw . $&  ` AppellantbaseshisstatecauseofactiononRhodeIsland X&!( GeneralLaws9128.1(b)(the"PrivacyStatute"),whichstatesin (T#* relevantpart: )%, 8 ` Everypersonwhosubjectsorcausestobe \+&. subjectedanycitizenofthisstate...toa 2,'/ deprivationand/orviolationofhisorher  righttoprivacyshallbeliabletotheparty  injuredinanactionatlaw,suitinequity, \ oranyotherappropriateproceedingsfor 2 redressineitherthesuperiorcourtor X districtcourtofthisstate..` x` x / ` Torecovercivildamagesforaprivacyviolation,theplaintiff `  mustestablishthat:  \  0 ` 0 ` (#` (# ` (A)0 (# (#Therehasbeensomepublicationofaprivate   fact;2  (# (#  ` (B)0 Thefactwhichhasbeenmadepublicmustbeone :  whichwouldbeoffensiveorobjectionabletoa `  reasonablemanofordinarysensibilities.36 (# (# R.I.Gen.Laws9128.1(a)(3)(i).   ` Forafacttobe"private"withinthemeaningofthe > statute,"plaintiffsmustdemonstratethattheyactuallyexpected : adisclosedfacttoremainprivate,andthatsocietywould  recognizethisexpectationofprivacyasreasonableandXXHDXX XHDbewilling B torespectit."Pontbriandv.Sundlun,699A.2d856,865(R.I. > 1997).Whilethisstandardfrequentlypresentsquestionsoffact,  theSupremeCourtofRhodeIslandhascategoricallydeterminedthat F ! plaintiffshavenoreasonableexpectationofprivacywithrespect !B# toinformationcontainedinapublicrecord:"[I]tisclearthat #% thestatutoryrighttoprivacyinRhodeIslanddoesnotextendto J% ' thoserecordsdeemedpublic."Doev.EdwardA.ShermanPubl'gCo., &F") 593A.2d457,459(R.I.1991).Consequently,thecriticalissuein (#+ thiscaseiswhetherHatch'sarrestreportisconsideredapublic N*%- recordunderRhodeIslandlaw.Thepartiespointustotwo +J'/ statutesthatbearontheclassificationofthisinformationthe  RhodeIslandAccesstoPublicRecords("PublicRecords")Statute \ thatcompelsthereleaseofallarrestrecords,andtheChildAbuse X Statutethatrequiresallrecordsconcerningreportsofchildabuse   tobekeptconfidential.j #  4       `   ` 1.TheRhodeIslandAccesstoPublicRecordsStatute  \   ` Ofthetwostatutesthatpotentiallygovernthestatusof   RichardHatch'sarrestinformation,onlythePublicRecordsStatute d  refersspecificallytoarrestrecords.SeeR.I.Gen.Laws382 `  2(4)(i)(D).Thestatutenarrowlycircumscribestheuniverseof   recordsmaintainedbylawenforcementagenciesthatarenot h consideredpublicrecords,providingthat"recordsshallnotbe d deemedpubliconlytotheextentthatthedisclosureoftherecords  orinformation...(c)couldreasonablybeexpectedtoconstitute l anunwarrantedinvasionofpersonalprivacy."Id.󀀀However,this h provisionconcludeswiththefollowingcaveat:"Recordsrelatingto  managementanddirectionofalawenforcementagencyandrecordsor p  reportsreflectingtheinitialarrestofanadultandthechargeor !l" chargesbroughtagainstanadultshallbepublic."Id.(emphasis "$ added). t$&  ` Thesignificanceofclassifyingparticulardocumentsas  &p!( "publicrecords"underRhodeIslandlawistwofold.First,any '#* kOY  k k  personisentitledtoreviewand/orduplicatepublicrecordsunder  reasonableconditionsprescribedbythecustodian:"Exceptas \ providedin3832(4),allrecordsmaintainedorkeptonfileby X anypublicbody...shallbepublicrecordsandeverypersonor   entityshallhavetherighttoinspectand/orcopythoserecordsat `  suchreasonabletimeasmaybedeterminedbythecustodian  \  thereof."R.I.Gen.Laws3823(a).Hence,sections382   2(4)(i)(D)and# XHDXXXXHD 6#XXHDXX XHD3823(a)imposeanaffirmativeobligationonlaw d  enforcementagenciestomakearrestrecordsavailabletothe `  public.Second,asnotedabove,adeterminationthatparticular   recordsarepublicisdispositiveastoanyprivacyclaimsarising h fromthereleaseofthoserecords.EdwardA.ShermanPubl'g,593 d A.2dat458.# XHDXXXXHDD#XXHDXX XHD   ` 2.TheRhodeIslandChildAbuseStatute l  ` Recognizingthatcertainstateorfederallawsmayimpose h confidentialityrequirementswithrespecttospecificinformation,  thePublicRecordsStatuteplacesthatinformationoutsidethe p  scopeofTitle38:"Forthepurposesofthischapter,thefollowing !l" recordsshallnotbedeemedpublic...(S)Records,reports, "$ opinions,information,andstatementsrequiredtobekept t$& confidentialbyfederallaworregulationorstatelaw,orruleof  &p!( court."R.I.Gen.Laws3822(4)(i)(S). '#*  ` TheRhodeIslandChildAbuseStatutearguablyfunctions x)$, assuchalaw.Withoutexplicitlymentioningarrestrecords,the $+t&. statuteprovidesthat"[a]llrecordsconcerningreportsofchild  abuseandneglect,includingreportsmadetothedepartment,Z #  5      # XHDXXXXHDF#XXHDXX XHDԀshall \ beconfidentialexceptasspecificallyprovidedbythischapter. X ..."R.I.Gen.Laws401113(a).Thesubsequentclauseofthe   provisionimposespenaltiesforthedisclosureoftheserecords, `  butlimitstheclassofpeoplesubjecttopunishment:"Anyemployee  \  oragentofthedepartmentviolatinganyoftheprovisionsofthis   sectionshallbeguiltyofamisdemeanor,andshallbefinednot d  morethantwohundreddollars($200)orshallbeimprisonedfornot `  morethansix(6)monthsorboth."R.I.Gen.Laws401113(b).   0 ` 3.InterpretingthePublicRecordsandChildAbuse h Statutes>` (#` (#  ` Readtogether,thePublicRecordsandChildAbuse : Statutesaresusceptibletoatleastthreereasonable  interpretations.Appelleesobservethat3822(4)(i)(D)ofthe B PublicRecordsStatuteclassifiesall"recordsorreports > reflectingtheinitialarrestofanadultandthechargeorcharges  broughtagainstanadult"# XHDXXXXHDJ#XXHDXX XHDԀaspublicdocuments.Theyarguethat F ! becauseHatch'sarrestrecordclearlyfallswithinthescopeof !B# thisprovision,CaptainLeonardandLieutenantSmithonlydivulged #% informationthatwasalreadydeemedpublicunderRhodeIslandlaw. J% ' Appelleesfurtherassertthat401113oftheChildAbuseStatute &F") doesnotspecificallyrefertoarrestrecordsinits  confidentialityprovision,andbyitstermsinsubsections(a)and \ (b)appearsonlytoencompassDCYFrecordsandpersonnelrather X thantherecordsofalocalpolicedepartment.Hence,theChild   AbuseStatutedoesnotunderminethepublicstatusofthearrest `  informationintherecordsoftheMiddletownpolicedepartment.  \   ` Alternatively,thelanguageof401113(a)oftheChild   AbuseStatuteemphasizesthat"allrecordsconcerningreportsof d  childabuseandneglect,includingreportsmadetothedepartment, `  shallbeconfidential# XHDXXXXHDZP#XXHDXX XHDԀ...."R.I.Gen.Laws401113(a)   (emphasisadded).# XHDXXXXHDKU#XXHDXX XHDԀSignificantly,thephrase"allrecords"in40 h 1113(a)isnotmodifiedbyanylanguagerestrictingthe d confidentialityrequirementtoDCYFrecordsorpersonnel.Thusthe  ChildAbuseStatutemightbepreciselythekindofconfidentiality l statutecontemplatedby3822(4)(i)(S)ofthePublicRecords h Statute,whichremovesparticularrecordsfromitspurviewif  anotherlawmandatesthattherecordsremainconfidential.Under p  thisreadingofthestatutes,401113# XHDXXXXHDU#XXHDXX XHDԀoftheChildAbuseStatute !l" createsanexceptiontothefinalsentenceof3822(4)(i)(D)of "$ thePublicRecordsStatute,andprohibitsthereleaseof# XHDXXXXHDX#XXHDXX XHDany t$& informationconcerningreportsofchildabuse.  &p!(  ` Hatchforgoesthishardlinestanceinfavorofathird '#* interpretationofthestatutes.Focusingonthelanguageof38 x)$, 22(4)(i)(D)ofthePublicRecordsStatute# XHDXXXXHDY#XXHDXX XHD,hearguesthatthe $+t&. phrase"recordsorreportsreflectingtheinitialarrestofan  adultandchargesbroughtagainst[him]"onlyauthorizesthe \ disclosureofaskeletalaccountofthearrestconsistentwiththe X provision'sdenialofpublicrecordstatustoinformationthat   "couldreasonablybeexpectedtoconstituteanunwarrantedinvasion `  ofpersonalprivacy."Totheextentthatanyinformationbeyond  \  RichardHatch'snameandasimplerecitationofthechargewas   releasedtothemedia,Hatchinsiststhathisrighttoprivacywas d  violated. `   ` Wefindnoguidanceinthestatutesorcommonlawof   RhodeIslandtoaidusindeterminingwhatlevelofdetailruns h afoulofthe"reflecting"languagein3822(4)(i)(D)ofthe d PublicRecordsStatute# XHDXXXXHD[#XXHDXX XHD.Indeed,thereasonablenessofallthree  interpretationsillustratesthedifficultiesfacedbyRhodeIsland l policeofficersunsureastowhetheranarrestrecordcontaininga h reportofchildabuseisconsideredapublicrecord.   B.QualifiedImmunity  p   ` 1.GeneralPrinciples 8!"  ` WeobservedinHatchIthat"thelawstrivestobalance "4$ itsdesiretocompensatethosewhoserightsareinfringedbystate $& actorswithanequallycompellingdesiretoshieldpublicservants <&!( fromundueinterferencewiththeperformanceoftheirdutiesand '8#* fromthreatsofliabilitywhich,thoughunfounded,maynevertheless )$, beunbearablydisruptive."Hatch,274F.3dat20(quoting @+&. Buenrostrov.Collazo,973F.2d39,42(1stCir.1992)).Inthe  1983context,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasstruckthis \ balance# XHDXXXXHDd_#XXHDXX XHDbyapplyingatwoparttesttodeterminewhetherplaintiffs X mayholdgovernmentofficialscivillyliableforallegedviolations   ofconstitutionalandfederalstatutoryrights: `  8 ` # XHDXXXXHDd#XXHDXX XHD[A]ppellateassessmentofaqualifiedimmunity  \  claimisapportionedintotwoanalytic  2  components.First,iftherightassertedby   theplaintiffwas"clearlyestablished"atthe   timeofitsallegedviolation,wearerequired d  toassumethattherightwasrecognizedbythe :  defendantofficial,seeHarlow[v. `  Fitzgerald],457U.S.[800,]818[(1982)]; 6 # XHDXXXXHD`e#XXHDXX XHDRodriguezv.Comas,888F.2d899,901(1st   Cir.1989);second,wewilldenytheimmunity  claimifareasonableofficialsituatedinthe h samecircumstancesshouldhaveunderstoodthat > thechallengedconductviolatedthat d establishedright# XHDXXXXHDg#XXHDXX XHD,seeAnderson[v. : Creighton],483U.S.[635,]64041[(1987)];  Rodriguez,888F.2dat901.` x` x e ` Burnsv.Loranger,907F.2d233,23536(1stCir.1990);seealso B CamiloRoblesv.Zapata,175F.3d41,43(1stCir.1999);Aponte > Matosv.ToledoDavila,135F.3d182,186(1stCir.1998)# XHDXXXXHDPi#XXHDXX XHD.# XHDXXXXHDk#XXHDXX XHD   ` # XHDXXXXHDk#XXHDXX XHDBothprongsofthisstandardaffordgovernmentofficials F ! somedegreeofprotectionwhentheyconfrontstatutoryambiguity !B# whileexecutingtheirofficialduties.Ifweassumethatstate #% officersinRhodeIslandmayseekthesamequalifiedimmunityfrom J% ' statelawactionsthatisavailabletostateofficialssuedunder &F") 1983,thecontradictoryprovisionsinthecaseatbarinthe (#+ PublicRecordsandChildAbusestatutesundermineHatch'sclaim N*%- thathisrightswere"clearlyestablished"withrespecttothe +J'/ narrowquestionofwhetherpoliceofficersareprohibitedfrom  releasingarrestreportscontaininginformationofchildabuse.As \ weobservedinAponteMatos,# XHDXXXXHDMl#XXHDXX XHDԀthisresolutionofthefirstprongis X sufficienttosupportafindingofqualifiedimmunity.Aponte   Matos# XHDXXXXHDo#XXHDXX XHD,135F.3dat187.# XHDXXXXHDp#XXHDXX XHDԀAlternatively,undertheobjective `  "reasonableofficer"standardembodiedinthesecondprong,Captain  \  LeonardandLieutenantSmitharestrongcandidatesforqualified   immunitygiventheabsenceofanybasisfora"reasonableofficer" d  toconcludethatoneofthethreeinterpretationsoutlinedaboveis `  theonlycorrectone.    ` However,beforewecanconcludethatthetwopolice h officersareentitledtoqualifiedimmunity,wemustexamineour d earlierassumptionthatRhodeIslandprovidesimmunityinstatelaw  actionscomparabletotheimmunitythatstateofficersenjoyin l 1983cases,anddeterminewhetherthisisactuallythecase.# XHDXXXXHD+q#XXHDXX XHD  h  0 ` 2.QualifiedImmunityUnderRhodeIslandLaw` (#` (#  ` AlthoughcounselforHatchconcededatoralargumentthat p  qualifiedimmunityisavailabletostateofficersdefendingclaims !l" underRhodeIslandlaw,thereisno# XHDXXXXHDt#XXHDXX XHDdecisionfromtheSupremeCourt "$ ofRhodeIslandexpresslyaffordinggovernmentofficialscommonlaw t$& immunityfromstatelawclaims.Nonetheless,RhodeIsland'shigh  &p!( courthasleftlittledoubtthatthedefenseexistsforstate '#* officersundercertaincircumstances.InPontbriand,theGovernor x)$, ofRhodeIslandreleasedtheaccountinformationofbankdepositors $+t&. toencouragethestatelegislaturetopasslegislationcompensating  depositorsinstatebanksandcreditunionsthatwereclosed \ becausetheyhadnofederaldepositinsurance.Pontbriand,699 X A.2d856.Theaccountholdersbroughtsuitallegingviolationsof   theirrighttoprivacyunderstatelaw,promptingtheGovernorto `  claimthathewasentitledto"goodfaith"immunityevenifhis  \  actionsviolatedthestateprivacystatute.Id.Reviewingthe   availabilityofthisdefense,thecourtobservedthat"[a]lthough d  notextensivelydiscussedinourpriorcases,itseemsbeyonddoubt `  thattheGovernormaybeentitledtosomeformofcommonlaw   immunityforhisactsperformedingoodfaith."Pontbriand,699 h A.2dat867# XHDXXXXHDOv#XXHDXX XHD(originalemphasis)(citingHarlowv.Fitzgerald,457 d U.S.800,81319(1982),andScheuerv.Rhodes,416U.S.232,247  48(1974)).Thecourtdeclinedtoruleontheavailabilityof l immunity,observingthat"theissuewasneitherextensivelybriefed h bythepartiesnorreachedbythetrialjusticebelow."  Pontbriand,699A.2dat867.However,thecourtsignaledthetrial p  judgethatbarringplaintiffs'claimsongroundsofqualified !l" immunityremainedanoptiononremand:"[W]eareoftheopinion "$ thatthedeterminationregardingwhetherofficialqualified t$& immunityexistsshouldbeleftfordeterminationuponremand."Id.  &p!( Ѐ ` TwoyearsafterissuingitsdecisioninPontbriand,the '#* SupremeCourtofRhodeIslandaddressedqualifiedimmunityina x)$, contextsimilartothefactsofthiscase.SeeEnseyv.Culhane, $+t&. 727A.2d687(R.I.1999).Enseywasfalselyaccusedbyhisex  girlfriendofkidnapingandrapingheratgunpoint. \ Notwithstandingtheexistenceoffactsstronglysuggestingthe X plaintiff'sinnocence,thepoliceobtainedanarrestwarrantand   issuedaverbalpressstatementrevealingEnsey'sidentity,the `  charges,andthefactssurroundingtheinvestigation.Afterthe  \  policeuncoveredthefabrication,plaintifffiledsuitagainstthe   SuperintendentoftheStatePoliceandtenunnamedpoliceofficers, d  allegingahostofviolationsofhisstateandfederal `  constitutionalrightsandhisrighttoprivacyunderRhodeIsland   law.TheSupremeCourtofRhodeIslandmadethefollowingcomments h inreviewingthedefendants'assertionofqualifiedimmunity: d 8 ` [D]efendantsarguethatthedoctrineof  qualifiedimmunity,animmunitytypically  affordedtogovernmentofficialsonthe l federallevel,barsplaintiff'sclaims.We B areoftheopinionthat,inanappropriate h case,thedoctrineofqualifiedimmunitymight > wellbeappliedbythisCourt.SeeHarlowv.  Fitzgerald,457U.S.800,818(1982)  ("governmentofficialsperforming p  discretionaryfunctions,generallyare F ! shieldedfromliabilityforcivildamages !l" insofarastheirconductdoesnotviolate !B# clearlyestablishedstatutoryor "$ constitutionalrightsofwhichareasonable #% personwouldhaveknown").t$&` x` x Id.at69091.However,becauseEnseycouldnotidentifythe  &p!( policeofficerswhoallegedlyviolatedhisrightsduringthe '#* investigation,thecourtdidnotreachthequestionofwhether x)$, particularstateofficerswereentitledtoqualifiedimmunity. $+t&.  ` Significantly,PontbriandandEnseyreflectRhode  Island'srecognitionofaqualifiedimmunitydefenseunderstate \ lawanalogoustothefederaldoctrineestablishedbytheUnited X StatesSupremeCourtinHarlowv.Fitzgerald,citedwithapproval   inbothRhodeIslanddecisions,androutinelyappliedin1983 `  cases.Hence,weconcludethatHatch'sconcessionthatqualified  \  immunityisavailabletoofficersdefendingstatelawclaimsis   wellgroundedinthelawofRhodeIsland. d  0 ` 0 ` (#` (# ` 3.CaptainLeonardandLieutenantSmith`  (# (# ، `  ` CaptainLeonardhadtonavigatebetweentwostatutes,   bothofwhichpurportedtobestowindividualrightsonasegmentof h thepopulation.ThePublicRecordsStatuteexpresslygrants d individualstherighttoinspectand/orduplicateanydocuments  thatareclassifiedaspublicrecords,including"recordsor l reportsreflectingtheinitialarrestofanadultandthechargeor h chargesbroughtagainstanadult# XHDXXXXHDO|#XXHDXX XHDԀ...."R.I.Gen.Laws382  2(4)(i)(D).# XHDXXXXHD#XXHDXX XHDԀTheChildAbuseStatuteprotectsthepartiestoan p  allegedincidentofchildabusebypreservingtheconfidentiality !l" ofallrecordsdocumentingtheevent.R.I.Gen.Laws4011 "$ 13(a).Hence,ifCaptainLeonardhadinterpreted401113ofthe t$& ChildAbuseStatutetoprohibitthereleaseofHatch'sarrest  &p!( recordinitsentirety,membersofthemediacouldhave '#* legitimatelyarguedthatthepolicedepartmenthadviolatedthe x)$, PublicRecordsStatute.GiventheseuncertaintiesunderRhode $+t&. Islandlaw,CaptainLeonarddidnotviolateanyclearlyestablished  rightofHatchtotheprivacyoftheinformationreleasedtothe \ mediabyLeonard.Accordingly,wefindthatLeonardisentitledto X qualifiedimmunityunderRhodeIslandlaw.    ` Asfor# XHDXXXXHDn#XXHDXX XHDLieutenantSmith,wedonotevenhavetoreachthe `  issueofqualifiedimmunity.Hisminorembellishmentsofthe  \  arrestreport,whileprobablyilladvised,didnotdivulgenew   information.Instead,hemerelycharacterizedfactscontainedin d  adocumentthathadpreviouslybeenreleasedtothemedia.Once `  CaptainLeonardreleasedthereporttothepress,Hatchcouldno   longermaintaintheexpectationthatthedetailscontainedinthe h publicizedreportwouldremainprivate.Swerdlickv.Koch,721 d A.2d849,859(R.I.1998)("Thereisnoliability[forpublication  ofprivatefacts]whenthedefendantmerelygivesfurtherpublicity l toinformationabouttheplaintiffthatisalreadypublic.") h (quotingRestatement(Second)Torts,652Dcmt.b).# XHDXXXXHD#XXHDXX XHDԀHence,  Smith'ssubsequentreleaseofinformationtotheNationalEnquirer p  cannotformthebasisofaclaimunderRhodeIsland'sPrivacy !l" Statute.# XHDXXXXHD#XXHDXX XHD "$ Ӏ# XHDXXXXHDٙ#XHDXX XHD ` Hatch'scomplaintalsonamestheTownofMiddletownasa t$& defendant.However,hisargumentstothedistrictcourtthroughout  &p!( thesummaryjudgmentphaseandbeforeusfocusentirelyonthe '#* liabilityofCaptainLeonardandLieutenantSmithtotheexclusion x)$, oftheTown.Indeed,appellant'sbriefcontainsonlytwoopaque $+t&. referencestotheTown'spolicies,withoutanyelaborationofa  theoryofmunicipalliability.Wewillnotaddressaclaim \ developedsoperfunctorily.# XHDXXXHDV#XXHDXX XHDl #  6      ׀Ryanv.RoyalIns.Co.ofAm.,916 X F.2d731,734(1stCir.1990)("Itissettledinthiscircuitthat   issuesadvertedtoonappealinaperfunctorymanner,unaccompanied `  bysomedeveloped# XHDXXXXHD#XXHDXX XHD Sargumentation,aredeemedtohavebeen  \  abandoned.").# XHDXXXXHD#XXHDXX XHD     ` Accordingly,thedistrictcourt'sentryofsummary   judgmentinfavorofthedefendantsis affirmed.  c   ` Soordered.  ~  # XHDXXXXHDD#XXHDXX XHD  Appendix   AllreferencesbelowaretoprovisionsoftheRhodeIslandGeneral ` Laws(2001). 6  9128.10 ` RighttoPrivacyActionforDeprivationofRight8 ` (#` (#  ]( 83\ "`3"   `  `3Z2 (  a  )3  0    Righttoprivacycreated.Itisthepolicy   ofthisstatethateverypersoninthis |  stateshallhavearighttoprivacywhich R  shallbedefinedtoincludeanyofthe (x  followingrightsindividually...(3)The N  righttobesecurefromunreasonable $  publicitygiventoone'sprivatelife...   (i)Inordertorecoverforviolationof   thisright,itmustbeestablishedthat:(A) V Therehasbeensomepublicationofaprivate ,| fact;(B)Thefactwhichhasbeenmade R publicmustbeonewhichwouldbeoffensive ( orobjectionabletoareasonablemanof  ordinarysensibilities... `3Z݌(#(# Ќ   `  "`3"   `  `32 (  b  )3  0    Rightofaction.Everypersonwhosubjects & orcausestobesubjectedanycitizenof  thisstateorotherpersonwithinthe  jurisdictionthereoftoadeprivationand/or X violationofhisorherrighttoprivacy .~ shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinan T actionatlaw,suitinequity,oranyother * appropriateproceedingsforredressin  eitherthesuperiorcourtordistrictcourt   ofthisstate.Thecourthaving \! jurisdictionofanactionbroughtpursuant 2"  tothissectionmayawardreasonable #X! attorneys'feesandcourtcoststothe #." prevailingparty.`3݌$ #(#(# Ќ   `  38220 ` AccesstoPublicRecords(Definitions) 'V"%` (#` (#  a(88]! !0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# (4)(i)Forthepurposesofthischapter,the f)$' followingrecordsshallnotbedeemedpublic <*%( ...(D)Allrecordsmaintainedbylaw +b&) enforcementagenciesforcriminallaw +8'* enforcementandallrecordsrelatingtothe  detectionandinvestigationofcrime,  includingthosemaintainedonanyindividual \ orcompiledinthecourseofacriminal 2 investigationbyanylawenforcementagency. X Provided,however,suchrecordsshallnotbe . deemedpubliconlytotheextentthatthe   disclosureoftherecordsorinformation..   .(c)couldreasonablybeexpectedto `  constituteanunwarrantedinvasionof 6   personalprivacy.... \ (#(# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# X Recordsrelatingtomanagementand 5  directionofalawenforcementagencyand  [  recordsorreportsreflectingtheinitial 1  arrestofanadultandthechargeorcharges   broughtagainstanadultshallbepublic. (#(# Ѐ   38230 ` AccesstoPublicRecords(RighttoInspectandCopy / Records) ` (#` (# ! ! c( 88a"`3"   `  `3h2 (  a  )3  0    Exceptasprovidedin3822(4),all #s recordsmaintainedorkeptonfilebyany I publicbody,whetherornotthoserecords  arerequiredbyanylaworbyanyruleor  regulation,shallbepublicrecordsand { everypersonorentityshallhavetheright Q toinspectand/orcopythoserecordsatsuch 'w reasonabletimeasmaybedeterminedbythe M custodianthereof. @p  @p `3h݌#(#(# Ќ  401113 0 ` AbusedandNeglectedChildren(ConfidentialityofRecords % u andReports)  !Y` (#` (#  ! ! e(88c  ` 0 (a)0 (# (#Allrecordsconcerningreportsofchild w#! abuseandneglect,includingreportsmadeto M$" thedepartment,shallbeconfidentialexcept #%s # asspecificallyprovidedbythischapteror %I!$ asspecificallyprovidedby42728or &"% specificallyauthorizedbythefamilycourt '"& infurtheranceofthepurposesdirectly {(#' connectedwiththischapter.Q)$((#(#   z*%)  g( 88e! !"`3"   `  `32 (  b  )3  0    Anyemployeeoragentofthedepartment   violatinganyoftheprovisionsofthis  sectionshallbeguiltyofamisdemeanor, \ andshallbefinednotmorethantwohundred 2 dollars($200)orshallbeimprisonedfor X notmorethansix(6)monthsorboth.# XHDXXXXHD}#E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E