dissenting.
[¶ 70] I join Justice Clifford’s dissent. I respectfully dissent separately to emphasize what serious changes we are adopting in practices regarding confidentiality of criminal investigations.
[¶ 71] In our democracy we hope that there is a substantial public interest in government integrity, prompt reporting and successful prosecution of crime, re*543specting the rights of the accused, and protecting the privacy of sex crime victims. That substantial public interest does not create a license for newspapers, or anyone else, to review old case files20 and publicize or use them as they see fit. The Court’s opinion21 focuses on the fact that some of the cases involve sexual abuse that occurred several decades ago, but the precedent it establishes is by no means limited to decades old cases. In fact, the files at issue were developed by the Attorney General’s office rather recently, and it would seem that there would be an even greater public interest in disclosure, if the Court’s reasoning is followed, if the unpro-secuted events had occurred more recently in time.
[¶ 72] The Court’s opinion holds that disclosure of the criminal investigative records sought by the newspapers “is likely to advance that public interest, as demonstrated by the fact that the records were the basis for the Attorney General’s decision not to initiate criminal prosecutions.” In essence the Court is saying that once a decision not to prosecute is reached, the “public interest” may be invoked to justify turnover of investigative records to the press, and anyone else who asks, regardless of the risk of harm or embarrassment to victims, to individuals who may have been wrongly or mistakenly accused, or to witnesses who have reported relevant information.
[¶ 73] As Justice Clifford points out, with this change in the law, criminal investigators can no longer assure confidentiality, absent necessary disclosure during prosecution, to persons reporting embarrassing and humiliating events in their fives. Without the protections that the assurance of confidentiality has previously provided, victims and witnesses may be deterred from reporting evidence of crimes, particularly if the revelation of that evidence could cause harm or embarrassment to themselves or people they care about. To this extent, the newspapers’ success today may work against the public interest, deterring victims from reporting events of sexual abuse or violence out of fear of later revelation of their reports in the press.
[¶ 74] The Court’s opinion also suggests no mechanism in the disclosure process to protect an individual who, years ago, may have been wrongly or mistakenly accused. Persons wrongly or mistakenly accused of crimes risk being pilloried in public by newspapers reporting accusations that competent, professional prosecutors have determined do not constitute prosecutable offenses.
[¶ 75] The protections provided by a court-ordered redaction, focused on by the Court, are illusory. Redaction is a choice for the court; it may or may not be ordered when disclosure is sought one year or twenty years later. If it is too “onerous,” to use the Court’s language, it need not be ordered at all. Redaction cannot be promised to a victim contemplating reporting a crime and would probably provide no protections for an individual wrongly or mistakenly accused of criminal activity.
[¶ 76] The Legislature could not have intended this result when it adopted the exceptions to the confidentiality of criminal investigative information in section 614. *544Nothing in the history of the legislation suggests that the Legislature intended that when a prosecutor reaches a difficult decision not to prosecute, the “public interest” may be invoked by anyone to require that the prosecutor’s investigative records be turned over to the press on demand for any use, responsible or salacious, that anyone chooses to make of the record.
. The Court’s opinion addresses unprosecut-ed cases. The statute the Court interprets, 16 M.R.S.A. § 614(1), is not so limited and applies to any information in police and prosecutor's files.
. References to "the Court’s opinion” are to the opinion of the three Justice plurality whose result, but not reasoning, is joined by the Chief Justice.