Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/10-police-techniques/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:46:13+00:00

Document:
Law enforcement records may be withheld from disclosure under the Public Records Act to the extent that they would disclose confidential techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions. AS 40.25.120(6)(E), or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigation or prosecution if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. AS 40.25.120(6)(F).
Wiretapping activity cannot be revealed except to specific public officials involved in the investigation. A.R.S. § 13-3011.
Unless the technique or manual fits into the “open investigation” exception, the Attorney General has opined that it is subject to disclosure. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-134. Furthermore, any training manuals located in a police officer’s personnel file is subject to the FOIA. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2008-046.
Sections of the Department of Correction’s procedures dealing with emergency situations are exempt from the FOIA. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-27-137(a).
Exempt. Police techniques or “security procedures” are expressly exempt from disclosure under Section 6254(f).
Records of security procedures may be withheld under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-305(5) if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
The D.C. Act does not specifically address police techniques, although § 2-534(a)(3) may apply. Recently, the District attempted to justify withholding documents concerning the police department's use of breathalyzer tests under the investigatory-records exemption. The D.C. Court of Appeals explained that withholding would be appropriate only if "(1) the documents requested . . . [were] compiled for law enforcement purposes, and (2) disclosure of those documents would interfere with enforcement proceedings." Fraternal Order of Police, Metro. Labor Committee v. D.C., 82 A.3d 803, 815 (D.C. 2014).
O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(3) exempts from disclosure law enforcement records that if revealed would be reasonably likely to disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential investigative or prosecution material which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or persons, or the existence of a confidential surveillance or investigation.
Information in an investigatory record compiled for law enforcement that would disclose investigative techniques and procedures is exempt from disclosure. Idaho Code § 74-124(1)(e).
Only specialized investigative techniques which would result in demonstrable harm to the public body that is the recipient of the request are exempt. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(v). Generic police techniques are open. Id; Public Access Opinion 11-002 (available at http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2011/11-002.pdf) (number of police officers assigned to districts is subject to disclosure).
There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue, except the general exception under Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-4(b)(1)for law enforcement investigatory records, which may be released at the agency’s discretion. Criminal intelligence information is confidential under Indiana Code Section 5-2-4-6.
Mentioned at K.S.A. 45-221(a)(10)(D). The presumption is that they are closed as part of a criminal investigation.
Generally open. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.878(1)(h).
Exempt. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:3(A)(3). But a general assertion that certain documents reveal investigative techniques is insufficient to justify the privilege. The law enforcement agency must produce evidence to substantiate the claim of privilege and the party seeking discovery of the records must be afforded meaningful cross-examination to allow the discovering party to contradict the assertion of the privilege. Freeman v. Guaranty Broad. Corp., 498 So. 2d 218 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1986).
In general “investigative techniques and procedures or security plans and procedures not generally known by the general public” are confidential. 16 M.R.S.A. § 804(7).
A custodian may deny access of investigatory records to a person in interest if, among other things, the disclosure would disclose an investigative technique. § 4-351(b)(5). Inspection of records by a notary public or any other person in interest may be denied if, among other things, the inspection could disclose an investigative technique or procedure. § 4-332(d)(5).
Confidential informants are private criminal justice information and not available for public dissemination. However, any allegation that an officer violated the public trust in carrying out some technique is not “private” information and may be disclosed. See Great Falls Tribune v. Cascade County Sheriff, 238 Mont. 103, 775 P.2d 1267 (1989); Citizens to Recall Whitlock v. Whitlock, 255 Mont. 517, 844 P.2d 74 (1992); Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman Police Dept., 260 Mont. 218, 859 P.2d 435 (1993). In each of cases, the court found that the individual officer, public employee or elected official has very little expectation of privacy, and the public has a fundamental right to know what public employees are doing.
There is no law on point.
Gilleran v. Township of Bloomfield 227 N.J. 159 (2016) - Supreme Court of New Jersey determined that security camera footage of municipal parking lot was exempt from access under OPRA due to the two security exemptions in OPRA.
Police techniques are typically confidential information and thus not available to the public. NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1(A)(4); § 29-10-4.
Police techniques are not specifically addressed by statute but likely could be withheld as criminal intelligence or criminal investigative records. G.S. § 132-1.4(b).
Generally closed. See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7.
Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures are explicitly exempted from disclosure. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 149.43(A)(1)(h), 149.43(A)(2)(c).
Audio and video recordings of an arrest made by a law enforcement agency are a public record under the Act. Ward & Lee, P.L.C. v. City of Claremore, 2014 OK CIV APP 1.
Information compiled in investigations not connected with pending or contemplated prosecution may remain confidential if it would disclose investigative techniques and procedures. See Jensen v. Schiffman, 24 Or. App. 11, 544 P.2d 1048 (1976); Attorney General Manual § I(E)(4)(d).
Law enforcement agency investigative records which could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source are exempt from disclosure. R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(D)(d).
Closed, presumably. SDCL §§1-27-1.5 (5) and (8).
Internal law enforcement detection and investigation methods are generally exempt under Section 552.108. In Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex. 1977), the Texas Supreme Court held that the Act excepts law enforcement information if release “will unduly interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention.” In Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-531 (1989), the Attorney General advised that detailed portions of a police department’s “use of force” procedures are excepted from disclosure under the Act because it “is reasonable to conclude that knowledge of these detailed guidelines would place an individual at an advantage in confrontations with police officers and would increase his chances of evading arrest or injuring the officer or other persons.” However, other portions of the procedures that only restate generally known common law, constitutional, or Penal Code provisions are public.
Records that reasonably could be expected to disclose investigative techniques that are not generally known outside of government are protected from public disclosure. Utah Code § 63G-2-305(10)(e).
Records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime are exempt from disclosure, including records that “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecution if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5)(a)(v).
Specific tactical plans, if their release would jeopardize law enforcement personnel or public safety, and staffing, logistics, or tactical plans of undercover operations or protective details are subject to exclusion and to discretionary release. This does not permit the withholding of information concerning the overall costs of operations. Va. Code. Ann. § 2.2-3706.B.5 and 8.
Investigative records that disclose police techniques may be withheld if nondisclosure is necessary for effective law enforcement. RCW 42.56.240(1). The state Supreme Court has held that records of internal police investigations are public, but the names of complaining persons and law enforcement officers who are the subject of complaints may be withheld. Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Washington State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (finding, on the facts of the case, that nondisclosure is necessary for effective law enforcement).
No Wyoming cases have discussed this issue.

References: § 13
 § 12
 § 24
 § 2
 v. 
 § 50
 § 74
 § 44
 v. 
 § 804
 § 4
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 § 29
 § 132
 § 44
 v. 
 v. 
 § 38
 § 63
 § 317
 § 2
 v.