This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
After spending years battling to expose what he believed was a case of political corruption, Weber State University physicist Dan Schroeder has scored a victory for public access to bank records and other documents in criminal investigations involving matters of public interest.
The Utah Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision released Wednesday that prosecutors can't refuse to disclose bank records seized legally based solely on the claim that to do so would violate the investigation target's constitutional privacy rights.
Media attorney Jeff Hunt, who took on the case without charge, described the ruling as "a big win for open government."
Schroeder still isn't sure how much light the documents will shed on the shady politics and campaign slush funds he set out to reveal. The politicians and organization at the center of the case have moved on, the criminal investigation has long been closed, and the statute of limitations has expired.
Still, "I want everyone to know the story," he said, acknowledging a probability there will "still be unanswered questions."
He's happy, though, about the precedent the case sets for open records. "I think this will have a positive impact statewide on government transparency in ways that it might be a little hard to foresee."
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, writing the decision and joined by all four of his colleagues, said, "There can be no violation of Section 14 [prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures] when the government obtains information through a valid warrant or subpoena, so the state constitution does not exempt the bank records from GRAMA's public-disclosure requirements."
GRAMA is the nickname for Utah's Government Records Access and Management Act, which Schroeder used beginning in 2011 to try to obtain documents related to Envision Ogden, a nonprofit formed four years earlier by then-Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey, supposedly to promote business and recreation in the city.
Envision came under scrutiny in 2009 by the state bureau of investigation and later by the Utah attorney general's office. It was alleged that more than $26,000 of about $80,000 in donations collected at fundraising events sponsored by the mayor was diverted into local political campaigns, including Godfrey's and his handpicked council candidates. Among donors were the Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce and the Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development, which have policies prohibiting political contributions.
The attorney general's office closed its investigation without charges in March 2011. When Schroeder filed an open-records request under GRAMA, the attorney general provided some documents. Others were ordered disclosed by the State Records Committee. Unsatisfied with the result, Schroeder filed suit in 3rd District Court.
Specifically, he sought Envision Ogden's bank records, which had been obtained by the attorney general's office through subpoena, a separate summary of those bank records and an investigator's note.
Judge Keith Kelly denied the disclosure, finding it would be unconstitutional for the attorney general's office to disclose the bank records. He also ruled that the other requested documents were confidential under GRAMA as "attorney work product" created solely in anticipation of litigation.
The Supreme Court overturned the district court on all counts, finding no constitutional protection for the bank records and, while agreeing that the other documents were protected under GRAMA, ruled that public interests in disclosure "clearly outweigh" those privacy interests.
Schroeder said he had no idea in the beginning how much time and effort this battle would require.
But he asked himself at each step whether it was time to give up, "and the answer was no.
"At the last stage, it was an easy decision because I had the best media lawyers in the state volunteering to take on the case."
So was it worth it?
"Even without seeing the records, even if there's nothing interesting in them, I'm really glad we were able to get this decision from the Supreme Court because that's going to help other people trying to get records, so in that sense, it was worth it. Absolutely."