Opinion ID: 2794235
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Criminal Investigative Files

Text: The proper sequencing of these provisions begins with an examination of Code § 2.2-3706(A)(1)(a), which requires disclosure of certain specified “[c]riminal incident information.” Fitzgerald properly concedes that the requested 7 suicide note does not fall within this mandatory disclosure provision. We next look to subsection (A)(2)(a), which permits, but does not mandate, disclosure of “[c]riminal investigative files.” Sitting as factfinder, the circuit court found that the requested suicide note was one of many documents in a criminal investigative file protected from mandatory disclosure by Code § 2.2-3706(A)(2)(a). At no point did Fitzgerald suggest, nor did any evidence imply, that the Sheriff’s Office acted outside its lawful authority in opening a criminal investigative file to investigate the unexpected and unattended death of a senior United States Air Force official. The Sheriff’s Office thus had the discretion, but not the duty, to disclose documents within this file. Even so, Fitzgerald argues, the criminal investigative file lost its character as such when the file was closed by the Criminal Investigations Division of the Sheriff’s Office. We find nothing in the statutory text or in its legislative context to support this counterintuitive conclusion. Suffice it to say, the point of a criminal investigation is to investigate — to determine whether a crime occurred and, if so, who perpetrated it. A criminal investigation may or may not lead to a prosecution. But that does not mean that the application of FOIA disclosure requirements is dependent upon the outcome of the investigation. In this case, investigators 8 discovered the suicide note during an ongoing criminal investigation. That the investigation was later closed is inconsequential for purposes of FOIA disclosure principles.