Opinion ID: 363564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Decision on Cox's Appeal.

Text: 10 We considered issues similar to those raised in this case in another FOIA action brought by the appellant, Cox, against the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration, Cox v. United States Dept. of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302 (8th Cir. 1978) (Cox I ). In that case, Cox sought access to, among other things, the Drug Enforcement Administration Agents' Manual. The Government resisted disclosure, relying primarily upon exemptions (b)(2) and (b)(7). After examining the scope of the FOIA disclosure requirement as applied to the law enforcement agency's manual, we remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration because of the conclusory nature of the Government's affidavits. 11 In our discussion in Cox I of the Government's claims to the (b)(2) exemption, we held that (b)(2) exempts only 'housekeeping' matters in which 'the public could not reasonably be expected to have an interest.'  Cox v. Department of Justice, supra, 576 F.2d at 1309-10. In so doing, we adopted the narrow interpretation of exemption (b)(2) contained in the Senate Report on the FOIA. 6 Accord, Jordan v. Department of Justice, No. 77-1240 (D.C.Cir., Oct. 31, 1978) (slip op. at 28-38) (En banc ). See Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 363-64, 369, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976). But see Caplan v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 587 F.2d 544, at 547-549 (2d Cir., 1978) (distinguishing Rose ). 12 We further determined in Cox I that exemption (b)(7) applies only to investigatory records that are compiled in the course of a specific investigation. Cox v. Department of Justice, supra at 1310. 13 Finally, we held in Cox I that Congress did not intend to require public disclosure under the FOIA of law enforcement information which would impede law enforcement efforts. Cox v. Department of Justice, supra at 1309. The FOIA legislative history, distinguishing administrative matters from law enforcement matters in the context of staff manuals, indicates that such an exception to the general FOIA disclosure requirement is implied in the language of subsection (a)(2)(C). That subsection refers only to administrative staff manuals as materials which must be made available to the public. 7 Cox v. Department of Justice, supra, at 1306-08. 14 We have examined the record in this case, including the FBI affidavits articulating the Government's reasons for declining to disclose the withheld materials and, In camera, the manuals themselves. Based upon our examination of the record and our decision in Cox I, we hold that the district court's rulings should be affirmed for reasons summarized as follows: 15 1) The entire FBI Manual of Rules and Regulations set forth internal personnel rules and practices of the FBI. Accordingly, the district court properly denied disclosure of that manual to Cox under exemption (b)(2), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). 16 2) The record shows that the agency properly refused to disclose certain described materials which would affect national security. The district court properly denied Cox access to those materials. 8 17 3) Our review of the excised portions of the Manual of Instructions indicates that those sections designated as housekeeping matters exempt under FOIA subsection (b)(2) are accurately characterized and were properly withheld under the exemption. 18 4) The district court properly found that other portions of the Manual of Instructions which the Government sought to withhold under exemption (b)(2) constituted law enforcement matters, disclosure of which would impede law enforcement efforts. As we held in Cox I, supra, such materials are not part of administrative staff manuals under § 552(a)(2)(C) and need not be disclosed by a government law enforcement agency. 9 19 Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court.