Opinion ID: 1314001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: law enforcement investigatory records

Text: S.S. & I. also contends that the list of names, addresses, etc., of the security guards is a record of a law enforcement agency, namely, the Secretary of State, and is to be kept confidential under the law enforcement exemption to the State FOIA. The primary purpose of exemption 7 to the Federal FOIA for law enforcement investigatory records was to prevent premature disclosure of investigatory materials which might be used in a law enforcement action. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 621, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 2059, 72 L.Ed.2d 376, 383 (1982). The primary purpose of W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977] is the same. The threshold inquiry under both the State FOIA and the Federal FOIA is whether the information claimed to be exempt from disclosure under the law enforcement exemption constitutes (1) investigatory records (2) compiled for law enforcement purposes (federal) or records... that deal with the detection and investigation of crime.... (state) [8] The list of names, addresses, etc., of the security guards does not constitute investigatory records or records... that deal with the detection and investigation of crime because it was not compiled as part of an inquiry into specific suspected violations of the law. [citations omitted] Rather, [it is] more accurately described as [a] record[] generated pursuant to `routine administration, surveillance or oversight....' ... The fact that information ... may form a basis for further investigation does not make that [information] an investigatory record created pursuant to an investigation. [emphasis in original] ... The information [in question] is ... gathered during the course of routine administration and does not become investigatory because it may alert the administrator to a possible violation of law. Goldschmidt v. United States Department of Agriculture, 557 F.Supp. 274, 276 (D.D.C.1983). Accord, Stern v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 737 F.2d 84, 89-90 (D.C.Cir.1984) (distinguishing between specifically focused investigations for law enforcement purposes and general monitoring by an agency). Records ... that deal with the detection and investigation of crime, within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977], do not include information generated pursuant to routine administration or oversight, but is limited to information compiled as part of an inquiry into specific suspected violations of the law. The list in question also does not constitute internal records and notations... which are maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement[.] W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977]. This part of this exemption to the State FOIA is similar to exemption 7(E) to the Federal FOIA involving confidential investigative techniques and procedures. The language, internal records and notations ... which are maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement, within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977], refers to confidential investigative techniques and procedures. A mere listing of names, addresses, social security numbers, and the like, of the employees of a company subject to regulation by an agency clearly is not a confidential investigative technique or procedure. The theory underlying this exemption is that disclosure of such information could complicate the task of investigative agencies because potential violators of the law could familiarize themselves with the policies which govern law enforcement methods and frustrate investigations. [citation omitted] ... The exemption does not encompass, however, ordinary manuals or procedures unless they include confidential details of law enforcement programs. [citation omitted] Jaffe v. Central Intelligence Agency, 573 F.Supp. 377, 387 (D.D.C.1983). See generally annot., 82 A.L.R.3d 19 (1978). Having concluded that W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977] is not applicable to the facts of this case, even if it applies to civil enforcement proceedings of administrative agencies, we deem it unnecessary in this case to decide whether this exemption applies to records of law-enforcement agencies defined to mean only those agencies enforcing criminal laws. It is clear that exemption 7 to the Federal FOIA includes the enforcement of both civil and criminal federal laws. Stern v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 737 F.2d 84, 89 (D.C.Cir.1984). It is not so clear whether W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977] includes regulatory agencies' proceedings only to invoke civil sanctions, such as suspension or revocation of a license issued by the agency, and not to enforce penal laws. The state of Texas, for example, has an exemption worded identically to ours. [9] The legislative history of Texas' statute clearly limits the exemption to criminal law enforcement proceedings by any agency but some of the commentators have suggested a more expansive definition. See Comment, The Texas Open Records Act: A Section-By-Section Analysis, 14 Hous.L.Rev. 398, 413-14 & n. 131 (1977). Again, we leave to another day the question of the scope of the term law-enforcement agencies within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 29B-1-4(4) [1977]. To summarize, the law enforcement exemption does not apply to a list of names and addresses of security guards furnished to the Secretary of State pursuant to his licensing and regulation of the guards' employer, since such information was not part of an inquiry into specific suspected violations but was generated pursuant to routine administration of W.Va.Code, 30-18-1 et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and does not reveal confidential investigative techniques or procedures.