Harvard has asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by The Crimson that seeks to force the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) to release detailed crime reports.

The Crimson, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, is suing after a number of request for HUPD officers’ investigation notes were denied.

In a pair of briefs exchanged in the month since the suit was filed, Harvard and The Crimson have begun to hash out the legal issue central to the case—whether HUPD officers are subject to Massachusetts public records law.

The Crimson argued in their complaint that because HUPD officers are special state police officers deputized in Middlesex and Suffolk counties, they should be subject to the records law, which stipulates that records produced by agents of public institutions be available upon request.

Harvard responded in an Aug. 18 motion that the court should dismiss The Crimson’s complaint, because it fails to show that Harvard or HUPD is a public entity.

The brief cites Massachusetts General Law, which lists several broad groups— “any agency, executive office, board commission...of the Commonwealth”—whose records qualify as public. Because Harvard is a private institution by law, and since campus police officers are not mentioned specifically in the law, the statute does not apply to HUPD, Harvard argues.

Harvard concludes in the brief that HUPD reports do not qualify as public records although the officers who created them are endowed with “quasi-governmental powers.”

In a Sept. 5 brief, The Crimson opposes Harvard’s motion, claiming that Harvard misunderstood the crux of the original argument.

The brief reiterates that although Harvard remains a private institution, its individual officers may still act as governmental agents.

The Crimson claims HUPD officers are endowed with powers that mirror those of municipal forces, adding that those power designations are ample justification for HUPD officers to qualify as agents of the state whose records fall under public records law. They argue that the extent of the powers held by HUPD officers also justifies an expansive reading of the public records statutes.

Ultimately, the brief states, Harvard does not meet the high burden necessary to halt the suit prior to the discovery phase.

“[The plaintiff is] saying, in effect, that The Crimson can prove no set of facts that would entitle The Crimson to access HUPD records,” the brief states. “The Crimson is entitled to discovery and to create a full record on the nature of the appointments held by Harvard’s police officers and the scope of the authority they hold.”

University General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano ’83 could not be reached for comment this weekend, and a University spokesperson declined to comment, saying he had not seen The Crimson’s latest motion.

At the time the suit was filed, officials argued that releasing detailed records that could contain revealing personal information about students could violate their right to privacy.

Crimson President Amit R. Paley ’04 said yesterday that he is optimistic about the paper’s chances.

“The Crimson is confident that the courts will find that HUPD is subject to the same laws as every other police department in the Commonwealth and that the interests of the community are best served by opening these records,” he said.

—Staff writer Hana R. Alberts can be reached at alberts@fas.harvard.edu.