Source: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f16353.htm
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 12:13:22
Document Index: 496978679

Matched Legal Cases: ['§87', '§89', '§87', '§66', '§87', '§89', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87']

FOIL-AO-16353
As you are aware, I have received your letter. Please accept my apologies for the delay in response. You have sought guidance concerning access to witness statements attached to police reports, including motor vehicle accident reports.
In this regard, first, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law.
Second, §89(6) states that if records are available under some other provision of law or by means of judicial interpretation, the grounds for denial appearing in §87(2) cannot be asserted. Insofar as the witness statements are part of motor vehicle accident reports, it is likely that they must be disclosed in their entirety in most instances.
Of potential relevance to the matter is §66-a of the Public Officers Law, which was enacted in 1941 and states that:
If the witness statements are separate from accident reports, I believe that the Freedom of Information Law would govern rights of access. If the only basis for withholding the statements involves a finding that disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” [see §87(2)(b)], personally identifying details could be deleted, and the remainder of those records would be accessible [see §89(2)(b)]. Insofar as the statements relate to an ongoing criminal investigation, §87(2)(e) may be pertinent, for that provision authorizes an agency to withhold records that:
From my perspective, only those portions of the statements which if disclosed would result in the harmful effects described in subparagraphs (i) through (iv) would the Department have the authority to deny access; the remainder of the records would be accessible.
Of possible relevance, depending on the facts and circumstances, is §87(2)(f). That exception authorizes an agency to deny access insofar as disclosure could “endanger the life or safety of any person.”
The remaining exception of significance would be §87(2)(g). Although that provision potentially serves as a means of withholding records, due to its structure, it may require substantial disclosure. Specifically, §87(2)(g) enables an agency to withhold records that:
One of the contentions offered by the New York City Police Department in a decision involving that provision was that certain reports could be withheld because they are not final and because they relate to incidents for which no final determination had been made. The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, rejected that finding and stated that:
"Against this backdrop, we conclude that the complaint follow-up reports contain substantial factual information available pursuant to the provisions of FOIL. Sections of the report are devoted to such purely factual data as: the names, addresses, and physical descriptions of crime victims, witnesses, and perpetrators; a checklist that indicates whether the victims and witnesses have been interviewed and shown photos, whether crime scenes have been photographed and dusted for fingerprints, and whether neighborhood residents have been canvassed for information; and a blank space denominated 'details' in which the officer records the particulars of any action taken in connection with the investigation" (id., 276-277)
The Court in Gould also emphasized that §87(2)(g) is intended to pertain to communications between and among government officers or employees and that, therefore, a statement by a witness, even if it is an opinion, would not be deniable under that provision because the witness would not be a representative of government.