Opinion ID: 2328725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Police Officer Identification Information

Text: The News Journal argues that the Superior Court erred by declaring that, under FOIA, DELJIS should not release the police officer identification information because of concerns about officer safety. The News Journal contends that in order to be exempt from release under FOIA, information must invade privacy. DELJIS relies on officer safety concerns to argue that the Superior Court properly denied the release of police officer identification information. The Superior Court's decision that officer names and identification numbers should not be released was based on its factual determination that release of those data fields would threaten officer safety. [19] The Superior Court's factual findings are entitled to substantial deference unless clearly erroneous or not the product of a logical and deductive reasoning process. [20] This Court reviews de novo, however, the Superior Court's formulation and application of legal principles. [21] It is on this de novo review of legal principles that our determination rests. Despite its factual determination that release of police officer identification information would pose a threat to officer safety, the Superior Court applied an incorrect legal standard in excluding officer information based on safety concerns. FOIA makes no reference to officer safety as a basis for redacting officer information. Rather, FOIA is concerned with the disclosure of information which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. [22] The statute's provision authorizing omission of the names of witnesses, intelligence personnel and aids or any other information of a privileged and confidential nature [23] from disclosed FOIA information must be read in light of the concern about privacy, not a concern about officer safety that does not appear in the statute. Which officer conducted an arrest is a matter of public record. Where the officer is not an undercover, or intelligence, officer, the Superior Court did not articulate any privacy-related concerns but relied solely on its concern for officer safety. The Superior Court's holding, therefore, did not comport with the limitations on FOIA's disclosure requirements. Accordingly, it must be reversed.