Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/612/417/410090/
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 18:02:26
Document Index: 165367054

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 232', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1', '§ 552', '§ 552']

Church of Scientology of California, a Non-profitcorporation, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. United States Department of Justice, William B. Saxbe,attorney General of the United States; Drugenforcement Administration, Defendants-appellees, 612 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1980) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1980 › Church of Scientology of California, a Non-profitcorporation, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. United States...
Church of Scientology of California, a Non-profitcorporation, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. United States Department of Justice, William B. Saxbe,attorney General of the United States; Drugenforcement Administration, Defendants-appellees, 612 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1980)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 612 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1980) Nov. 8, 1979. Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1980
Church of Scientology of California ("CSC") appeals the district court's upholding of the Drug Enforcement Administration's ("DEA")1 decision not to disclose certain documents sought by CSC under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The main issue on appeal is the scope of the term "confidential source" as used in the 7(D) exemption of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (D).2
From the language of the statute on its face, the 7(D) exemption excludes from mandatory disclosure investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes in two different situations: first, where the production would "disclose the identity of a confidential source" and, second, "in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation", if the production would disclose "confidential information furnished only by the confidential source." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (D). If we were only to look at the language of the 7(D) exemption and give the words utilized therein their plain and ordinary meaning,10 we would be forced to conclude that the term "confidential source" refers simply to the origin of information, without distinction among the types of originators. Following that reading of the exemption, we would hold that "confidential source" includes foreign, state and local law enforcement agencies in its scope.
All of the cases that we have found which have considered the question, with one exception, have agreed with the above interpretation of the language of the 7(D) exemption. See Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 1005 (4th Cir. 1978); Lopez Pacheco v. FBI, 470 F. Supp. 1091, 1103 (D.P.R. 1979); Varona Pacheco v. FBI, 456 F. Supp. 1024, 1032 (D.P.R. 1978); Lesar v. United States, 455 F. Supp. 921, 924 (D.D.C. 1978); Cf., Mitsubishu Elec. Corp. v. United States Dep't of Justice, 1977-1 Trade Cases P 61,356 at p. 71,263 (D.D.C. 1977) (held that the 7(D) exemption would cover multi-national companies as "confidential sources"); See also Terkel v. Kelly, 599 F.2d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 1979) (Dicta) ; Contra Ferguson v. Kelley, 448 F. Supp. 919, 922 (N.D. Ill. 1978), Supplemental opinion 448 F. Supp. at 925, On motion for reconsideration 455 F. Supp. 324, 326-27 (N.D. Ill. 1978).
However, the sufficiency of a court's reliance solely upon the "plain meaning" of the language of a statute in interpreting its terms has come into question. See generally Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Col.L.Rev. 1299 (1975) ("Muprhy"). Recent pronouncements by the Supreme Court and this court have been somewhat inconsistent on this point. On the one hand, the Court in Train v. Colorado Pub. Interest Research Group, 426 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 1938, 48 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1976), held that it was error for the court of appeals to exclude reference to the legislative history of the statute in question when the appellate court's reliance on the plain meaning of the words in the statute produced a result which "would have marked a significant alteration of the pervasive regulatory scheme embodied in . . . (another statute)" and when that reliance contributed little to resolving the issue before the court of appeals. Train, supra, 426 U.S. at 23-24, 96 S. Ct. at 1948. In so deciding the Court held that there was no "rule of law" which forbids the use of extrinsic aids in construing the meaning of statutory language however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination". (Quoting from United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 60 S. Ct. 1059, 84 L. Ed. 1345 (1940).) Following the holding of the Train case, this circuit has permitted, on occasion, an expansive approach to the utilization of extrinsic aids such as legislative history in statutory interpretation. As stated in Pettis ex rel. United States v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 577 F.2d 668, 671 (9th Cir. 1978):
We begin by noting that the language of 31 U.S.C. § 232(C) affords no crevice of ambiguity within which to nestle the exception Pettis seeks. It presents a face, smooth, sharp, and unyielding. Nonetheless, we must heed the Supreme Court's recent admonition in Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U.S. 1, 9-10, 96 S. Ct. 1938, 48 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1976), to examine relevant legislative history in the search for the intent of Congress even when the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face. It is always possible that Congress did not quite mean what it said and did not quite say what it meant.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently articulated the opposite position and seemingly reaffirmed the former "plain meaning rule". In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 n. 29, 98 S. Ct. 2279, 2296 n. 29, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1978), it was stated that: "When confronted with a statute which is plain and unambiguous on its face, we ordinarily do not look to legislative history as a guide to its meaning." Likewise, this circuit has also recently breathed new life into the rule. See United States v. Rone, 598 F.2d 564, 569 (1979) ("When no ambiguity is apparent on the face of a statute, an examination of legislative history is inappropriate."); Cf., Adams v. Morton, 581 F.2d 1314, 1320 (9th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, Gros Ventre Tribes of Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 958, 99 S. Ct. 1498, 59 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1979).
The plain meaning rule can be viewed as consisting of two propositions. Initially, the rule stands for the notion that if the language of a statute is clear and there is no ambiguity, then there is no need to "interpret" the language by resorting to the legislative history or other extrinsic aids. See e. g. Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 492, 67 S. Ct. 789, 91 L. Ed. 1040 (1947); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 490, 37 S. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442 (1917). Secondly, and more importantly, the rule stands for the proposition that in the vast majority of its legislation Congress does mean what it says and thus the statutory language is normally the best evidence of congressional intent. As observed by the Court in United States v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 278 U.S. 269, 278, 49 S. Ct. 133, 136, 73 L. Ed. 322 (1929): ". . . where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended." It is the former component of the plain meaning rule which has been called into question by cases such as Train and Pettis, not the latter proposition.
While there may be instances where the language of a statute is so lucid on a particular issue that resorting to legislative history would be inappropriate (the first component of the plain meaning rule), such a rule is normally not applicable where, as here, the court must construe the meaning of an undefined term in a statute when the term used does not consist of words of art. However, even in the latter situation, the second component of the plain meaning rule cannot be ignored. We agree with the Court's language in American Trucking Assns., supra, 310 U.S. at 543-44, 60 S. Ct. at 1063-1064:
In the present case, we have concluded that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous if we give the words of the 7(D) exemption their ordinary meaning. However, we concede that the term "confidential source" is not a term of art. Moreover, the appellant herein has argued that our interpretation, which was also reached by the district court below, is contrary to the policy of the FOIA act as a whole and the intent of Congress in enacting the 7(D) exemption. For these reasons, we now turn to the legislative history of the 7(D) exemption and examine the congressional intent. Pursuant to our adherence to the applicable portion of the plain meaning rule, we believe that "the plainer the language, the more convincing contrary legislative history must be." United States v. United States Steel Corp., 482 F.2d 439, 444 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 414 U.S. 909, 94 S. Ct. 229, 38 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). Also, we note that "The proper function of legislative history is to solve, not create, an ambiguity." Rone, supra, 598 F.2d at 569. "In construing a statute, the Court has ruled that legislative materials, if 'without probative value, or contradictory, or ambiguous,' should not be permitted to control the customary meaning of words. United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562, (60 S. Ct. 1034, 1038, 84 L. Ed. 1356) (1940)." NLRB v. Plasterers' Union, 404 U.S. 116, 129 n. 24, 92 S. Ct. 360, 368 n. 24, 30 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1971).
Prior to the 1974 amendments to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) exempted from disclosure "investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes except to the extent available by law to a party other than an agency . . . ." The initial versions of the 1974 House of Representatives and Senate bills to amend the FOIA did not contain any language altering the 7th exemption. Freedom of Information Act and Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-502), Source Book: Legislative History, Texts and Other Documents at 133-34 and 192 (Joint Comm. Print 1975) (hereinafter referred to as "Source Book"). On May 30, 1974, Senator Phillip Hart offered Amendment No. 1361 which proposed to change the 7th exemption to read as follows:
The substitution of the term "confidential source" in section 552(b) (7) (D) is to make clear that the identity of a person other than a paid informer may be protected if the person provided information under an express assurance of confidentiality or in circumstances from which such an assurance could be reasonably inferred. Under this category, in every case when the investigatory records sought were compiled for law enforcement purposes either civil or criminal in nature the agency can withhold the names, addresses, and other information that would reveal the identity of a confidential source who furnished the information. However, where the records are compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority, All of the information furnished only by a confidential source may be withheld if the information was compiled in the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, where the records are compiled by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, all of the information furnished only by a confidential source may also be withheld.
The bill in the form now presented to the Senate has been significantly changed by the conference on these critical issues. The language of section 552(b) (7) has been changed from protecting from disclosure the identity of an "informer" to protecting the identity of a "confidential source" to assure that the identity of a person other than a paid informer may be protected. The language has also been broadened substantially to protect from disclosure all of the information furnished by a confidential source to a criminal law enforcement agency if the information was compiled in the course of a criminal investigation. Thus, not only is the identity of a confidential source protected but also protected from disclosure is all the information furnished by that source to a law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation.Source Book at 468.
Congressman Moorhead (co-sponsor of the House Bill), Senator Kennedy (the Senate Conference Committee Chairman) and Senator Hart (the initiator of the amendment to the 7th exemption) have all stated that the conference committee "acted affirmatively to satisfy" President Ford's objections to the amended version of the (b) (7) exemptions. Source Book at 381 and 450. One of President Ford's objections had been the potential adverse effect of the 7th exemption, as initially proposed, upon law enforcement if "sources of information or the information itself are disclosed." Source Book at 380. As repeatedly expressed in the debates on the amended version of the 7th exemption by both proponents and opponents of the amendments, Congress was concerned that law enforcement agencies should not be faced with a "drying up" of their sources of information or have their criminal investigative work be seriously impaired. Source Book at 381, 391-92, 451, 468, 473, and 476. In response to that concern, it was continually stressed by members of the conference committee that:
A "plain meaning" interpretation of the 7(D) exemption would not be in conflict with the remainder of the FOIA. While the FOIA "is in favor of disclosure", Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S. Ct. 1592, 1599, 48 L. Ed. 2d 11 (1976), it should be apparent that the subsection (b) exemptions are also a part of the FOIA and in their case Congress decided that there were "types of information that the Executive Branch must have the option to keep confidential." Id., quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 79-80, 93 S. Ct. 827, 35 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1973); See also FAA Administrator v. Robertson, 422 U.S. 255, 261, 95 S. Ct. 2140, 45 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1975). While one may employ the general purpose of the act as justification to narrowly construe the exemptions where there is an absence of congressional intent on a particular area covered by one of the exemptions, one must remember that the congressional intent in enacting the exemption was to preserve, not destroy, confidentiality in certain necessary situations. Consequently to say, as appellant does here, that one's interpretation of the exemption is consistent with the general purpose of the FOIA is to ignore the congressional intent which caused and required the enactment of the exemptions in the first place.
The purpose of the FOIA is to serve disclosure of federal agency activity, not as a means for private parties to find out what facts or opinions foreign, state or local law enforcement agencies have collected or made on them. Cf., S.Rep.No.813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965), quoted in Department of Air Force, supra, 425 U.S. at 361, 96 S. Ct. 1592; NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 143 n. 10, 95 S. Ct. 1504, 44 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1975). By including foreign, state and local law enforcement agencies in the 7(D) exemption, we would not be preventing any proper disclosure of federal agency action. If we adopt the approach suggested by appellant we would eliminate sources of information which the federal agencies may need without gaining any greater disclosure of the type of information which the FOIA seeks to reveal.
Finally, there is a rule of statutory interpretation that should be mentioned. A statute should not be interpreted so as to produce an absurd result. Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 461, 12 S. Ct. 511, 36 L. Ed. 226 (1892). Any inanimate entity, such as a corporation or a foreign law enforcement agency, must act through a human intermediary. If we now interpret "source" as limited only to human sources, there would be an absurd difference between saying that a federal agency received sought-after information from an agent, Mr. X, of a foreign law enforcement agency under an expressed or understood assurance of confidentiality and saying that the agency had received the information from the foreign law enforcement agency under the same assurance of confidentiality. Cf., Victoria-Vogue, Inc. v. Valcourt, Inc., 148 F. Supp. 160, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1956). We do not think that Congress intended to impose such a form over substance rule for law enforcement agencies.
In conclusion, we find that the language of the 7(D) exemption on its face would clearly include foreign, state and local law enforcement agencies within its scope. The legislative materials are ambiguous as to an expressed limitation on the meaning of the term "confidential source" and hence do not control the customary meaning of the words. Plasterers' Union, supra, 404 U.S. at 129 n. 24, 92 S. Ct. at 368 n. 24. More importantly, the evidence of the congressional intent as to the 7(D) exemption in the legislative history strongly supports our interpretation.
410 F. Supp. at 1300. First, it is argued that the district court did not find that the non-disclosed documents contained confidential information which had been furnished Only by a confidential source as required by the 7(D) exemption. Second, it is argued that the district court failed to specifically find that the information had been compiled in the course of criminal investigations.
I am in sympathy with the result reached by the majority. The statute is clear enough on its face. It makes eminent sense and I quite frankly wish that it were the law. Unfortunately, however, because the Supreme Court requires us to examine legislative history in construing the meaning of a statutory term such as the one before us, Train v. Colorado Pub. Interest Research Group, 426 U.S. 1, 9-10, 96 S. Ct. 1938, 48 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1976), and because the legislative history of the amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (D), as I read it, clearly expresses a congressional intent that "confidential source" be limited to human sources, I must respectfully dissent. In concluding that the documents withheld by the DEA are not entitled to protection from disclosure under (b) (7) (D), I would not reach appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the lower court's findings.
* The question before us, whether "confidential source" as used in (b) (7) (D) includes foreign, state, and local law enforcement agencies, is a difficult one. If I were looking only to the plain language of the statute, I would agree with the conclusion of my brethren that "source" refers simply to the origin of information, without distinction among types of originators. However, the Supreme Court directed that legislative history should not be ignored when it aids in the resolution of a question of statutory construction, Train v. Colorado Pub. Interest Research Group, supra, 426 U.S. at 9-10, 96 S. Ct. at 1942, 48 L. Ed. 2d at 440-441, and this circuit has demonstrated its willingness to heed that admonition "to examine relevant legislative history in the search for the intent of Congress even when the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face." Pettis ex rel. United States v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 577 F.2d 668, 671 (9th Cir. 1978). See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Barnes, 571 F.2d 502, 504 n.4 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 831, 99 S. Ct. 108, 58 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1978).
To be sure, "reliance on legislative history in divining the intent of Congress is, as has often been observed, a step to be taken cautiously." Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc., 430 U.S. 1, 26, 97 S. Ct. 926, 941, 51 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1977). Nonetheless, without additional guidance from the Supreme Court, I believe we are bound by the teaching of Train, and therefore we must take the more thorough approach and examine the legislative history for assistance in construction of the term "source." In doing so I, like my brethren, feel that we should heed the Court's instruction that "legislative materials, if 'without probative value, or contradictory, or ambiguous,' should not be permitted to control the customary meaning of words." NLRB v. Plasterers' Local 79, 404 U.S. 116, 129 n.24, 92 S. Ct. 360, 368 n.24, 30 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1971) (quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562, 60 S. Ct. 1034, 84 L. Ed. 1356 (1940)). See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 412 n.29, 91 S. Ct. 814, 28 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1971); Pettis ex rel. United States v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., supra, 577 F.2d at 672.
The district judge, although aware of passages "suggest(ing) that the legislator's focus was upon human sources," concluded that "(a)ssorted grammatical nuances . . . are no substitute for an assessment of what interpretation the legislature would have given the term source if the issue involved here had been presented at the time of passage." Church of Scientology v. United States Dep't of Justice, 410 F. Supp. 1297, 1302 (C.D. Cal. 1976). Similarly, the majority relies on the fact that Congress did not "plan" to prevent law enforcement agencies from gathering information. Our determination, however, cannot be based upon subsequent happenings which may demonstrate the illogical position taken, nor upon what Congress would have done had it foreseen the facts of this case. I conclude that at the time of the passage of the statute, the legislative history shows that Congress intended the term "source" to mean "person."
As originally proposed by Senator Hart, subsection (b) (7) (D) exempted "(i) nvestigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would . . . disclose the identity of an informer . . . ." See House Comm. on Government Operations & Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Freedom of Information Act and Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-502) Source Book: Legislative History, Texts, and Other Documents 332 (Joint Comm. Print 1975) (hereinafter cited as Source Book). At the time of his introduction of the amendment, Senator Hart stated:
In response to President Ford's concerns, the Conference Committee substituted "confidential source" for "informer."1 Id. at 367, 378, 450-51, 459 (remarks of Senators Kennedy and Hart and Congressman Moorhead). Its joint explanatory report, which "represents the considered and collective understanding of those (legislators) involved in drafting and studying proposed legislation," Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 186, 90 S. Ct. 314, 325, 24 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1969), said:
While floor debates are accorded less weight than committee reports, United States v. International Union UAW, 352 U.S. 567, 585-86, 77 S. Ct. 529, 1 L. Ed. 2d 563 (1957); Accord, International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 518 F.2d 913, 921 (9th Cir. 1975), the floor discussion in the Senate with respect to this passage supports this view of "source." Statements made both before passage of the amendment in the Senate and following the Conference Committee Report and Presidential veto indicate that Senators Hart and Kennedy, both members of the Conference Committee, and Senator Byrd assumed the exemption referred to persons or individuals.2 The government argues and the majority agrees that Congress intended to protect law enforcement efforts. I do find throughout the legislative debates broad statements by Senators Hart and Kennedy to the effect that law enforcement would in no way be hampered by the amendment of subsection (b) (7). See id. at 351, 365, 440, 459. We should not, however, allow broad statements of assurance made in floor debate to control the clear language of the Committee report, language supported by statements of both senators indicating that they understood that "source" referred to persons or individuals. See id. at 351, 459. I think it is clear that "source" was not meant to include foreign, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Although there was considerable testimony pertaining to law enforcement difficulties that could result from this interpretation, this does not allow us to ignore congressional intent. We are not judging what should have been done but what was done. The law enforcement problem resulting from interpreting "source" as individuals, which undoubtedly is real, should be addressed to the Congress rather than to the courts.
The government argues that the question whether "source" should include foreign, state, and local law enforcement agencies "simply did not arise." This is not, however, a case of legislative silence, but one in which Congress did speak and specified the scope of the term in question. Especially persuasive is the fact that Congress was creating exceptions to a rule of disclosure. We should be reluctant under these circumstances to view an omission as anything but deliberate. I conclude that in light of Train v. Colorado Pub. Interest Research Group, supra, 426 U.S. at 9-10, 23-24, 96 S. Ct. 1938, we are required to give the term the meaning Congress intended it to have in spite of its facially plain meaning to the contrary.
This conclusion is consistent with the purposes of the Act in general. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the " 'basic policy' " of the Act "is in favor of disclosure." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 220, 98 S. Ct. 2311, 57 L. Ed. 2d 219 (1978) (quoting Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S. Ct. 1592, 48 L. Ed. 2d 11 (1976)); Accord, Theriault v. United States, 503 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1974). While this consideration is not determinative in this case, it is worth pointing out that a restrictive reading limits the meaning of "source" to persons and thus favors disclosure over secrecy.
The DEA was created pursuant to the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 (eff. July 1, 1973, 38 FR 15932, 87 Stat. 1091, as amended Mar. 16, 1974, Pub. L. 93-253, § 1, 88 Stat. 50) to consolidate the antidrug enforcement activities of the federal government into one agency in the Department of Justice. See President's Message submitted together with the Reorganization Plan cited in (1973) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 3554, 3555. The DEA's responsibilities include conducting relations with drug law enforcement officials of foreign governments and coordinating joint efforts with state and local law enforcement agencies. Id
The 7(D) exemption of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (D), exempts from disclosure:
5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (C) exempts matters that "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
See Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice, 410 F. Supp. 1297, 1299-1300 ns. 3-13 and accompanying text (C.D. Cal. 1976)
410 F. Supp. at 1300
Words used in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning in the absence of persuasive reasons to the contrary. Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers, 390 U.S. 459, 465, 88 S. Ct. 1140, 20 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1968); Accord Trans Alaska Pipeline Cases, 436 U.S. 631, 643, 98 S. Ct. 2053, 56 L. Ed. 2d 591 (1978)
410 F. Supp. at 1302
Courts look to the statements by the initiators or sponsors of proposed legislation when the meaning of words used in a statute is in doubt. National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 640, 87 S. Ct. 1250, 18 L. Ed. 2d 357 (1967)
In Ferguson v. Kelley, supra, 448 F. Supp. at 922, the district court found that local law enforcement agencies were not within the 7(D) exemption because: "We are not certain that other law enforcement agencies can reasonably believe that all information which they may supply to a federal agency will be shielded from public disclosure. As public agencies subject to public scrutiny, other law enforcement agencies are in a very different position from that of a private citizen who has no legal duty to volunteer information to law enforcement agencies." As discussed Supra, the district court is simply in error when it assumes that foreign, state and local law enforcement agencies have a duty to volunteer information to federal law enforcement agencies. Consequently, in this context, they are similar to private citizens, which the district court would place within the scope of the exemption
See Lopez Pacheco v. FBI, supra, 470 F. Supp. at 1104 n. 16 and accompanying text (D.P.R. 1979) where although the FBI was willing to release certain investigative documents obtained from state police officials in Washington, the state authorities refused to give the FBI permission to do so, stating in a letter that:
Source Book, Supra, at 451. Senator Kennedy stated that "we also provided that there be no requirement to reveal not only the identity of a confidential source, but also any information obtained from Him in a criminal investigation." Id. at 459 (emphasis added). Senator Byrd stated he had been concerned that "informer" could have been construed to mean "paid informer," but said he would vote for the bill, with the (b) (7) (D) amendment, in part because "confidential source" would "assure that the identity of a Person other than a paid informer may be protected." Id. at 468 (emphasis added).