BRISTOL — When they passed the new law that treats 17-year-olds charged with crimes as adults, the Rhode Island General Assembly and Governor Carcieri’s administration introduced some vagueness into the state’s Access to Public Records laws, a special assistant attorney general said yesterday.

Christy Hetherington, special assistant to Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, told a group of lawyers and public officials meeting at the Roger Williams University Law School that her office has not yet determined whether the state’s Open Records Law should apply to 17-year-olds who are now treated as adults.

“I really have no idea,” said Hetherington, who oversees public records and public meetings compliance for the attorney general. “I don’t think it is a black-and-white case, it is not easy.”

Hetherington confirmed that a Rhode Island “police agency” has asked the attorney general’s office for an opinion on the issue, but declined to say which agency had made the request.

The issue comes into play when citizens — often media representatives — ask police officials for police and criminal arrest records. For example, all initial arrest records of an adult are public records, but most juvenile records are shielded from public disclosure.

“This is something we are trying to sort out,” said Hetherington.

At the urging of Carcieri, the Assembly enacted a budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year that includes treating 17-year-olds as adults, rather than juveniles, for purposes of criminal charging and sentencing. The reason the change was made: Carcieri and legislative leaders believed it would save money because sending 17-year-olds to the state Adult Correctional Institutions, the state’s adult prison, would be cheaper than incarcerating them at the Rhode Island Training School, which houses juvenile offenders.

While the change was supposed to save $3.6 million, some have disputed whether that figure will be reached in the next 11 months.

But what is known is that the change has presented a conundrum for those — such as police officers — who must administer the open records provisions of state law.

For example, while the Assembly changed the law to allow 17-year-olds to be prosecuted as adults, lawmakers left intact laws that keep juvenile criminal records private and left the state’s age of majority at 18.

Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, who opposed the age change, acknowledged yesterday that the Assembly created a problem in interpreting the Open Records Law.

“It is something that we should make clear,” said Paiva Weed. “There are all these side repercussions when you change something like this.”

Said Michael Healey, spokesman for Lynch: “I can tell you that the issue has come up many times since the law was passed. The laws are inconsistent.”

Hetherington’s comments yesterday came at the attorney general’s Open Government Summit, an annual meeting that draws more than 500 lawyers, public officials and judges who routinely deal with laws governing state and municipal political bodies.

As a general rule, Hetherington said, political bodies should “err on the side of presuming the record is public.”

“We start with the presumption that everything is a public record.”

There are many exceptions to the state’s open records provisions, Hetherington acknowledged. For example, the laws try to preserve the privacy rights of public employees and their medical records.

smackay@projo.com