Opinion ID: 619809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Jordan's proposed test

Text: We construe the FOIA broadly, in favor of disclosure, and its exemptions are to be narrowly circumscribed. Trentadue, 501 F.3d at 1226. Even so, we reject Mr. Jordan's proposed interpretation. The statute refers to law enforcement purposes,  not law enforcement proceedings,  and it does not mention anything about enforcing a sanction. The only reference to an enforcement proceeding appears in § 552(b)(7)(A), which describes one of the six possible harms to law enforcement purposes (could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings) sufficient to withhold information under Exemption 7 once the threshold law-enforcement-purposes requirement is met. No enforcement proceeding is necessary to satisfy the `law enforcement purpose' criterion. Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 421 (D.C.Cir.1982). We also note that in his concurring opinion in Milner, Justice Alito explained that the phrase for law enforcement purposes is broader than Mr. Jordan suggests: The ordinary understanding of law enforcement includes not just the investigation and prosecution of offenses ... but also proactive steps designed to prevent criminal activity. Milner, 131 S.Ct. at 1272. Thus, the phrase also reasonably encompasses information used to fulfill official security and crime prevention duties. Id.