ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Sloane Bessey
In State, Department of Corrections v. Porche, 485 P.3d 1010 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that records from an unsubstantiated internal agency investigation are exempted from disclosure by the Alaska Open Records Act. (Id. at 1018). In May 2018, Porche was informed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) that he had been investigated, but the investigation had proved to be unsubstantiated. (Id. at 1011). Porche, citing the Alaska Open Records Act, requested the records from this investigation. (Id.). The DOC denied this request and the DOC commissioner reviewed and affirmed the denial based on one of the exemptions from the Act. (Id.). Porche appealed the decision to the superior court where he argued that the exemption in question protects against the unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of suspects, defendants, victims, and witness, and, because the claims against him were unsubstantiated, there were no such parties in his case. (Id. at 1011–12). The DOC appealed the superior court’s decision in favor of Porche. (Id. at 1013). The supreme court held that the definition of witness within the exemption includes witnesses whose allegations prove to be unsubstantiated. (Id. at 1016). Further, the court acknowledged that if it held otherwise there could be a possible chilling effect on future investigations. (Id.). The supreme court reversed and remanded the case, holding that records from an unsubstantiated internal agency investigation are exempted from disclosure by the Alaska Open Records Act. (Id. at 1018).
