Allowing victims to conceal arrest info a dangerous step

Does the state Constitution's so-called victims' rights amendment require concealing the sworn statements submitted to judges by police officers to justify arrests?

The state Supreme Court may answer that question in a case involving the West Hartford man who was arrested in 2007 and convicted the next year for sexually exploiting a teenage runaway he had been hiding in his house. A young woman who claimed that she too had been exploited by the man was quoted in the arrest warrant affidavit, which became public in Superior Court with the names of his accusers redacted. The second accuser, claiming authority under the victims' rights amendment, is asking the Supreme Court to give her standing to appeal the Superior Court's disclosure of the affidavit.

While the issue for this particular case seems moot, the affidavit already having been disclosed with the identities of the accusers concealed, the Supreme Court's decision could invite future challenges to disclosure of arrest information. That would be a disaster for accountability in Connecticut's criminal justice system.

Since most criminal cases are resolved by plea bargaining short of trial, arrest warrant affidavits are often the only accounting given to the public for crimes. Sometimes another description of the crime is read into the court record when a plea bargain is accepted, but without access to the arrest warrant affidavit there is no way to discern just how much the prosecution and defense compromised to resolve the case, and thus no way of evaluating the performance of prosecutors and public defenders, all public officials.

Further, arrest warrant affidavits often raise issues of police conduct and public policy. The affidavit in the case now before the Supreme Court disclosed that the defendant had impregnated the runaway in a statutory rape and still had been able to arrange an abortion for her, thereby concealing his crime, since Connecticut allows abortions to be performed on minors with no questions asked and no requirement for approval by parents or guardians. Thus minors more easily can become sex slaves, as the minor in this case was.

Besides, the victims' rights amendment plainly doesn't give crime victims control over public records.

Indeed, the amendment, adopted in 2000, doesn't do much at all, as it was little more than the General Assembly's patronizing sop to crime victims, an empty pose.

The amendment gives crime victims the right to make statements to the court before a criminal's sentencing, but awards no other rights that everyone else doesn't have, like "the right to be treated with fairness and respect throughout the criminal justice process."

The amendment even includes a provision ensuring its meaninglessness and unenforceability: "Nothing in this subsection or in any law enacted pursuant to this subsection shall be construed as creating a basis for vacating a conviction or ground for appellate relief in any criminal case."

While the administration of Connecticut's courts has been much more forthcoming in recent years, the state Supreme Court's record in cases involving freedom of information and open government remains overwhelmingly negative.

If the court discovers in the victims' rights amendment a right for accusers to suppress most of what the public can learn about criminal cases, it will be the court's biggest stretch yet.

Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.