Court denies access to wiretaps of ex-Governor Spitzer

A federal appeals court ruled that prosecutors may withhold records of wiretaps about the beginnings of the investigation into a prostitution ring that resulted in the resignation of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. -DB

The New York Times
August 8, 2009
By Benjamin Weiser

Prosecutors do not have to release secret court records relating to wiretaps that might have offered more details about how the investigation of the prostitution ring that ensnared former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and led to his resignation began, a federal appeals panel ruled on Friday.

The panel’s decision reversed a lower court ruling that had ordered release of the records, which included sworn affidavits that set forth the evidence that had led the authorities to seek the wiretaps and information that was being learned from them.

The records had been sought by The New York Times, which cited the First Amendment and the public’s traditional right of access to court records. Prosecutors opposed releasing the material, citing privacy concerns of apparent clients of the ring who were heard on the wiretaps and a general need to keep such investigations confidential.

In rejecting the newspaper’s arguments, Judge José A. Cabranes, writing for the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said that the traditional First Amendment access to court records did not apply in the case.

He wrote that Congress had “expressly crafted” the wiretap law “to ensure confidentiality and privacy, suggesting that public policy is served by less disclosure rather than greater disclosure.”

Wiretap applications “have not historically been open to the press and general public,” he added in an opinion joined by Judges Ralph K. Winter Jr. and Peter W. Hall.

In February, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court ruled that there was “obvious interest in obtaining information about the origins of an investigation that led, ultimately, to the resignation of the governor.” (Mr. Spitzer was not charged with a crime.)

David E. McCraw, a lawyer for The Times, said the newspaper had not decided whether to seek further review.

“We are obviously disappointed with the result,” he said, “and we continue to believe that public access to these types of court records would provide a valuable check on law enforcement agencies and on the courts.” Prosecutors had no comment.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times