Source: http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f16398.htm
Timestamp: 2016-02-09 20:32:03
Document Index: 751840343

Matched Legal Cases: ['§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87']

FOIL-AO-16398
As you are aware, I have received your letter concerning a request made to the State Police for records regarding “the killing of a NY State Trooper” in 1928. Even though the event occurred nearly eighty years ago, the records were withheld in consideration, in your words, of “privacy, internal administrative procedures and investigative nature of the material.” You have sought an advisory opinion concerning the propriety of the response.
Just as significant, the Court in Gould repeatedly specified that a blanket denial of access to records is inconsistent with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law. In that case, the Police Department contended that complaint follow up reports could be withheld in their entirety on the ground that they fall within the exception regarding intra-agency materials, §87(2)(g), an exception different from that cited in response to your request. The Court, however, wrote that: "Petitioners contend that because the complaint follow-up reports contain factual data, the exemption does not justify complete nondisclosure of the reports. We agree" (id., 276), and stated as a general principle that "blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government" (id., 275). The Court also offered guidance to agencies and lower courts in determining rights of access and referred to several decisions it had previously rendered, stating that:
In the context of your request, the State Police have engaged in a blanket denial of access in a manner which, in my view, is equally inappropriate. I am not suggesting that the records sought must be disclosed in full. Rather, based on the direction given by the Court of Appeals in several decisions, the records must be reviewed by that agency for the purpose of identifying those portions of the records that might fall within the scope of one or more of the grounds for denial of access. As the Court stated later in the decision: "Indeed, the Police Department is entitled to withhold complaint follow-up reports, or specific portions thereof, under any other applicable exemption, such as the law-enforcement exemption or the public-safety exemption, as long as the requisite particularized showing is made" (id., 277; emphasis added).
In short, I believe that the blanket denial of the request was inconsistent with law. Second, the extent to which the exceptions to which the State Police referred may properly be asserted is, in my opinion, highly questionable in consideration of the passage of time. With respect to privacy, §87(2)(b) authorizes an agency to withhold records insofar as disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” It is assumed that many, if not all, of those identified in the records are deceased. That alone would, in my view, diminish the likelihood that a denial of access based on the cited provision may be justified.
The Court of Appeals recently dealt with issues relating to those who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as their surviving family members. The records in question involved 911 tape recordings of persons who died during the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and the decision states that:
“Almost everyone, surely, wants to keep from public view some aspects not only of his or her own life, but of the lives of loved ones who have died. It is normal to be appalled if intimate moments in the life of one’s deceased child, wife, husband or other close relative become publicly known, and an object of idle curiosity or a source of titillation. The desire to preserve the dignity of human existence even when life has passed is the sort of interest to which legal protection is given under the name of privacy. We thus hold that surviving relatives have an interest protected by FOIL in keeping private affairs of the dead (cf. Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. V. Favish, 541 US 157 [2004])” [New York Times Company v. City of New York Fire Department, 43 NY3d 477; 484-485 (2005)].
“The recognition that surviving relatives have a legally protected privacy interest, however, is only the beginning of the inquiry. We must decide whether disclosure of the tapes and transcripts of the 911 calls would injure that interest, or the comparable interest of people who called 911 and survived, and whether the injury to privacy would be ‘unwarranted’ within the meaning of FOIL’s exception.”
“We do not imply that there is a privacy interest of comparable strength in all tapes and transcripts of calls made to 911. Two factors make the September 11 911 calls different. “First, while some other 911 callers may be in as desperate straits as those who called on September 11, many are not. Secondly, the September 11 callers were part of an event that has received and will continue to receive enormous - - perhaps literally unequalled - - public attention. Many millions of people have reacted, and will react, to the callers’ fate with horrified fascination. Thus it is highly likely in this case - - more than in almost any other imaginable - - that, if the tapes and transcripts are made public, the will be replayed and republished endlessly, and that in some cases they will be exploited by media seeking to deliver sensational fare to their audience. This is the sort of invasion that the privacy exception exists to prevent” (id. 485, 486).
As I view the direction offered by the Court of Appeals, the extent to which the contents of records are indeed intimate and personal is the key factor in ascertaining whether disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. I would conjecture that the records that you have requested do not contain “expressions of terror or agony” or reflections of “deepest feelings” or emotions. Unless there is a demonstration that the records at issue include intimate personal information or sentiments in some way comparable to those referenced in New York Times, it is doubtful in my view the State Police could demonstrate that disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The remaining grounds for denial offered by the State Police involve §87(2)(e), which permits an agency to withhold records that:
“...are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would:
iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures;”
That the records are “investigative in nature” is not determinative of rights of access. Critical is the effect of disclosure and whether or the extent to which disclosure would result in the kinds of harm described in subparagraphs (i) through (iv.) In view of the fact that nearly eighty years have passed since the event, it is inconceivable that significant aspects of the records relating to it would, if disclosed, interfere with an investigation. That is particularly so if indeed no investigative activity has recently occurred or is in any way ongoing. The less such activity has recently occurred, the less is the ability, in my view, to contend that disclosure would interfere with an investigation. If the case has effectively been closed, it might be contended that disclosure at this juncture would neither have an effect on nor interfere with the investigation.
With specific respect to “internal administrative procedures”, the key provision in my opinion is subparagraph (iv.) of §87(2)(e). That provision pertains to the authority to withhold records compiled for law enforcement purposes which, if disclosed, would reveal non-routine criminal investigative techniques and procedures.
In applying those criteria to specific portions of the manual, which was compiled for law enforcement purposes, the Court found that: "Chapter V of the Special Prosecutor's Manual provides a graphic illustration of the confidential techniques used in a successful nursing home prosecution. None of those procedures are 'routine' in the sense of fingerprinting or ballistic tests (see Senate Report No. 93-1200, 93 Cong 2d Sess [1974]). Rather, they constitute detailed, specialized methods of conducting an investigation into the activities of a specialized industry in which voluntary compliance with the law has been less then exemplary. "Disclosure of the techniques enumerated in those pages would enable an operator to tailor his activities in such a way as to significantly diminish the likelihood of a successful prosecution. The information detailed on pages 481 and 482 of the manual, on the other hand, is merely a recitation of the obvious: that auditors should pay particular attention to requests by nursing homes for Medicaid reimbursement rate increases based upon projected increase in cost. As this is simply a routine technique that would be used in any audit, there is no reason why these pages should not be disclosed" (id. at 573). As the Court of Appeals has suggested, to the extent that the records in question include descriptions of investigative techniques or procedures which if disclosed would enable potential lawbreakers to evade detection or endanger the lives or safety of law enforcement personnel or others [see also, Freedom of Information Law, §87(2)(f)], a denial of access would be appropriate. I would conjecture that the techniques and procedures used now may substantially differ from those employed some eighty years ago. If that is so, the ability to assert §87(2)(e)(iv) would likely be minimal. I note, too, that although it was held based on the facts in a particular case that although “laboratory examinations of certain items of evidence seized from both the crime scene and elsewhere” may be withheld, “ballistic and fingerprint tests” were found to be accessible, for disclosure of those tests would not enable future violators of law to tailor their conduct to evade detection [Spencer v. New York State Police, 187 AD2d 919 (1992)]
In an effort to enhance knowledge of and compliance with the Freedom of Information Law, a copy of this opinion will be sent to the records access officer at the State Police.
cc: Laurie Wagner