The public won an important case in Rutland District Court on Tuesday.

Judge Thomas Zonay ruled that the public right to know about a search warrant was more significant than the need for secrecy in a police investigation.

The case involves a state police probe into the activities of "John Doe," an officer with the Rutland City Police Department. The contents of the search warrant, the documents leading to the warrant being issued and even the existence of the warrant were secret; sealed by a compliant judge in Orleans County on the flimsiest of excuses last September.

For the record, that excuse is an "ongoing investigation" into Officer Doe's behavior. That's certainly good reason to seal the warrant before it is served, but once the state police searched the officer's computer, desk and locker at 108 Wales St., the subject of the investigation clearly knows what's going on and the public should, too.

That's the essence of Zonay's ruling in denying a state motion to keep this mess under seal for an additional 90 days. It's interesting to note that when the Herald first applied to get the warrant unsealed, Zonay included a footnote stressing that the files were secretly transferred to his jurisdiction – which happens as part of the process of doing the search — without his knowledge and he is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. Clearly, he's been uncomfortable with the level of secrecy in this case from the first time it came to his attention.

There's a prurient interest in discovering that the contents of Officer Doe's locker included dozens of pornographic media, including three DVDs the state investigator called "teen porn," and it's what we expect out-of-town media outlets to focus on. But there are much bigger questions for the residents of Rutland.

We were told late Tuesday that Officer Doe is on administrative leave. But when was he taken off the streets? On whose authority? Was he responsible for investigating anyone suspected of sexual crimes in the interim? Did he have official contact with underage females? If so, why should their parents not be concerned about the judgment of an officer under suspicion of viewing a movie whose title suggests it shows 11-year-olds showering, or another whose title suggests it involves incestuous child abuse?

In the interim, did the officer testify in court, and if so, were the defendants' attorneys privy to the fact that state police consider the officer to have been less than entirely truthful in an interview about his conduct?

Why did Chief Anthony Bossi not tell any of his superiors about the existence of the warrant, or the fact that state police found on city property a locker full of pornography, including material the state police suspect of being illegal? Certainly if a warrant was served in, say, the assessor's office, we would expect the mayor to know about it. So why are the rules different across the back parking lot? Who is responsible for the police? Bossi? Mayor Christopher Louras? The city Police Commission?

So far, despite the Herald's requests, the judge is withholding the suspect's name from the public. Are the other officers on the city force worried that in protecting John Doe's identity, the court system is putting them all under suspicion?

Judge Zonay allowed us to enlighten the public about the workings of its police force in unsealing the warrant. It's time for the city leaders – Bossi, Louras, the aldermen, the city attorney and the Police Commission – to do the same.