This story was originally produced by the Valley News. NHPR is republishing it in partnership with the Granite State News Collaborative.
Hanover must pay yet-to-be-calculated attorney’s fees and costs incurred in a legal dispute with the Valley News over public records that has been ongoing since 2024, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The state’s highest court affirmed that the penalty was “necessary to enforce compliance” with New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A, and “Hanover knew or should have known” that declining to release arrest records for two students taken into custody while staging a protest at Dartmouth College violated the law, according to the eight-page decision.
The ruling reversed an August 2024 decision by Judicial Referee Steven Houran that the Valley News was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs because the town “made a good faith effort to navigate a complex and unsettled” area of law when denying records requests.
After receiving the documents in question in September 2024, Valley News appealed Houran’s decision on attorney’s fees to the Supreme Court.
Under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, governmental bodies are required to release municipal records upon request and are liable for any attorney’s fees and costs incurred to enforce violations of the law.
“This ruling affirms a simple but essential principle: the public has a right to know, and that right must be defended,” Valley News Publisher Rich Wallace said in a statement Wednesday. “Awarding fees in this case recognizes that transparency should not come at a financial penalty to those willing to stand up for it. We pursued this not just for our newsroom, but for the community we serve — and today’s decision strengthens accountability for everyone.”
Wallace declined to say how much the Valley News has billed in legal fees.
In October 2023, Hanover Police arrested two Dartmouth students and cited them with misdemeanor criminal trespass after the pair refused to leave a tent pitched in protest in front of the college’s main administrative building. The pair were calling on the college to adopt a progressive policy document that included initiatives related to affordable housing, climate change and support for the Palestinian people.
The Valley News sought arrest records after the incident to help clarify the role Dartmouth College administrators played in calling Hanover police to dispel the peaceful protest.
Despite repeated requests by the newspaper, Hanover police refused to release the arrest records because of “active criminal prosecution of the case,” even after an attorney for the students agreed to the release.
In February 2024, Hanover took the case to Grafton County Superior Court to clarify whether the town was required to release the records.
In legal proceedings, the town argued that it did not have to release the documents because doing so “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings” or would “deprive a person of a right to fair trial or an impartial adjudication.”
After the court ruled in the Valley News’ favor and ordered Hanover to release the records and pay attorney’s fees and costs, the town asked the court to reconsider.
In August 2024, Houran upheld the decision requiring the town to release the records, but reversed his ruling on attorney’s fees and costs on the basis the case law on whether police records are subject to disclosure was unclear and Hanover “made a good faith effort” to navigate the law.
Hanover released the arrest records to the Valley News in September 2024. The reports revealed that college officials asked Hanover Police to respond and to trespass the students from the area. They also included publicly available documents such as Dartmouth College’s conduct policies and a notice from the college president to the community, according to the Supreme Court decision.
Because of this, the Supreme Court ruled that Hanover should have known at minimum that the publicly available information was subject to release and should not have issued a “blanket denial” of the request.
This week’s decision was “reassuring” to Bill Chapman, of Orr and Reno in Concord, a longtime attorney for the Valley News, who said: “There was no way a public document would interfere with law enforcement or deprive somebody of a fair trial.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the town’s “good-faith” argument and a claim that because Hanover brought the matter to court first, the lawsuit was not necessary for the Valley News to get the documents.
Hanover “acknowledges” the Supreme Court’s decision, but maintained that the proceedings “involved a complex and unsettled area of law, including how the Right-to-Know Law applies in the context of an active criminal case and its potential impact on an individual’s right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication,” Hanover Town Manager Rob Houseman said in a Wednesday statement. “In light of this, the Town proactively sought court guidance before releasing records to ensure it acted appropriately under the circumstances.”
Houseman declined to say how much Hanover has spent in legal fees so far on the case Thursday because he did not have immediate access to the numbers.
The ruling is an important one for local newspapers, many of which are in a “very tight financial situation,” and rely on the state’s Right-to-Know Law to access municipal information, Chapman said.
“A lot of time and money is being spent and for papers to know that at the end of the day if they prevail they’re going to get attorney’s fees is a very important feature of the Right-to-Know Law,” Chapman said in a Wednesday interview.
Orr and Reno is compiling an invoice of attorney’s fees to submit to Hanover, and the final award will depend on whether the town and attorney agree on the total cost. Chapman declined to share details about fees and hours spent on the case ahead of meeting with the town.
Hanover has 10 days to file a motion for rehearing.
The town plans to “review its options and proceed accordingly,” Houseman said.