Opinion ID: 1057779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Information as to Identities of Persons

Text: Ewing also requested the identities of all individuals, other than juveniles, arrested or charged by Officer Shelton or by another officer based on information supplied by him. The Department denied his request, and the circuit court ordered production. The Department appeals, arguing that this is a request for information, not documents, and therefore exempt from VFOIA. Code § 2.2-3706(C) provides that [i]nformation in the custody of law-enforcement agencies relative to the identity of any individual, other than a juvenile, who is arrested and charged, and the status of the charge or arrest shall be released. As the plain language of the statute compels the production of information as to the identit[ies] of individuals, the Department's position that all information requests are per se exempt from VFOIA is untenable. The remaining question for the Court is whether the information requested is subject to disclosure under Code § 2.2- 3706. The statute does not indicate any impediment to using the name of the arresting officer paired with a reasonable timeframe as the vehicle for a request under subsection (C). The statute thus 5 requires the production of Ewing's requested information as to identities of individuals arrested by Officer Shelton. The Department may furnish copies of arrest records or produce the information via another appropriate format. 2 Under a plain reading of this statute as a whole, however, it is clear that the latter portion of Ewing's request – concerning identities of individuals arrested based on Officer Shelton's information or observations – seeks information that is exempt from disclosure. Subsection (A) of Code § 2.2-3706 specifically distinguishes criminal incident information, subject to VFOIA under the provisions of this section, from criminal investigative files, which are exempt under subsections (D) and (F)(1) of the same statute. Subsections (D) and (F) specifically exempt information pertaining to witnesses, criminal investigative techniques, or criminal investigative files generally. Arrests occurring merely on Shelton's information or with him serving as a witness, for which Shelton has not signed or been otherwise designated as the arresting officer, fall into the category of criminal investigative files and are exempt under these provisions. 2 See Code § 2.2-3704(D) (Subject to the provisions of subsection G, no public body shall be required to create a new record if the record does not already exist. However, a public body may abstract or summarize information under such terms and conditions as agreed between the requester and the public body.). 6 The Court therefore orders the production, via either copies of original documents or other acceptable format, of identities of individuals arrested by Officer Shelton but not the identities of individuals for which he was not the arresting officer, regardless of information supplied by him or his presence as a witness relating to those arrests. As it is unclear from the record of this case whether arrest warrants signed by Shelton are duplicative of the Department's previous production of criminal incident reports responsive to Ewing's first request, the Court orders the circuit court to ensure production of any non-redundant identity information in accordance with this order.