Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05106/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05106-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Appellee
Donald Wayne Engelking
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed August 1, 1997

No. 97-5106

DONALD WAYNE ENGELKING,

APPELLANT 

v.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION SECTION,

APPELLEE 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 91cv00165)

------

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Donald Wayne Engelking, pro se.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney at the time the 

motion was filed, R. Craig Lawrence and Michael Joseph 

Ryan, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the motion 

for summary affirmance, for appellees.

USCA Case #97-5106 Document #287681 Filed: 08/01/1997 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: SILBERMAN, SENTELLE, and GARLAND, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Engelking is serving a life sentence for 

offenses including conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a 

large quantity of methamphetamine and using or carrying a 

firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking. He sent a 

Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Department of Justice seeking all records pertaining to himself. 

The request was referred to the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, both of which released some documents and withheld 

others in whole or in part pursuant to various exemptions to 

the FOIA. In a prior appeal, we summarily affirmed the 

district court's determination that the documents properly 

were withheld, with the exception of those withheld pursuant 

to FOIA Exemption 7(D), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). We remanded for reconsideration whether those documents were 

entitled to protection from disclosure in light of the Supreme 

Court's intervening decision in United States Department of 

Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993). Following our 

remand, the agencies released some additional materials but 

continued to withhold others, and filed supplemental declarations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor 

of the agencies, and Engelking again appealed. We affirm.

To the extent Engelking argues that he seeks exculpatory 

information, a requester's personal need for information is 

immaterial to whether that information is protected from 

disclosure by one of the exemptions to the FOIA. See U.S. 

Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the 

Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771 (1989).

Exemption 7(D) protects from disclosure information compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent production 

"could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a 

confidential source ... and, [in the case of a criminal investiUSCA Case #97-5106 Document #287681 Filed: 08/01/1997 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

gation] information furnished by a confidential source." 5 

U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). A confidential source " 'provide[s] information under an express assurance of confidentiality or in 

circumstances from which such an assurance could be reasonably inferred.' " Landano, 508 U.S. at 172 (quoting S. REP.

NO. 1200, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 13 (1974), reprinted in 1974 

U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN. NEWS 6285, 6291). In Landano,

the Supreme Court held there is no presumption that all 

sources who furnish information to the FBI are "confidential 

sources," but expressed its expectation that, in most instances, the government can point to circumstances supporting an 

inference of confidentiality. Id. at 174-79.

Most of the withheld materials in this case constitute 

information provided pursuant to express assurances of confidentiality or under circumstances strongly implying that an 

assurance of confidentiality was understood. We need not 

discuss these materials, which clearly fall within the ambit of 

Exemption 7(D).

With respect to the remaining materials, specifically those 

identified as pages 12 and 24 in the Supplemental Declaration 

of Thomas H. Wingate, Jr. ¶ 16, the nature of the crime and 

the source's relationship to the crime support an inference 

that the source provided information pursuant to an understanding of confidentiality. See Landano, 508 U.S. at 181. 

Engelking's methamphetamine operation was the subject of 

multiple cooperative investigations by federal, state, and local 

law enforcement agencies, which ultimately resulted in Engelking's conviction following the seizure of two methamphetamine laboratories, six handguns, and a rifle. In light of the 

character of the crimes at issue here, particularly the possession of numerous weapons in connection with large-scale drug 

trafficking, "[m]ost people would think that [sources] would 

be unwilling to speak to [law enforcement agencies] except on 

the condition of confidentiality." Landano, 508 U.S. at 179. 

See also Williams v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 69 

F.3d 1155, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Perrone v. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 908 F. Supp. 24, 27 (D.D.C. 

USCA Case #97-5106 Document #287681 Filed: 08/01/1997 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1995). In addition, the source gave information about his own 

activities, as well as those of Engelking and a third party, 

which implies a sufficiently close relationship to the crime to 

justify inferring the source spoke on a condition of confidentiality. These materials, therefore, are protected from disclosure by Exemption 7(D).

USCA Case #97-5106 Document #287681 Filed: 08/01/1997 Page 4 of 4