Opinion ID: 1836005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: records were exempt from disclosure

Text: [20] The City contends that the court erred in concluding that § 84-712.05(4), (5), and (7) did not exempt requested materials. We agree that the court erred in failing to conclude that § 84-712.05(5) exempted the investigatory records. Thus, we do not decide whether they were also exempt under § 84-712.05(4) or (7). [21] As noted, the Legislature intended that courts liberally construe §§ 84-712 to 84-712.03 for disclosure whenever a public body expends public funds. [26] Because the Legislature has expressed a strong public policy for disclosure, we must narrowly construe statutory exemptions shielding public records from disclosure. [27] Under § 84-712.05(5), public bodies have discretion to withhold the following materials: Records developed or received by law enforcement agencies and other public bodies charged with duties of investigation or examination of persons, institutions, or businesses, when the records constitute a part of the examination, investigation, intelligence information, citizen complaints or inquiries, informant identification, or strategic or tactical information used in law enforcement training, except that this subdivision shall not apply to records so developed or received relating to the presence of and amount or concentration of alcohol or drugs in any body fluid of any person. Here, the court ruled that the investigatory records exemption did not apply because (1) Robinson and Kimball are not `law enforcement agencies' or `other public bodies charged with duties of investigation or examination' and (2) the investigation was not a criminal justice or regulatory investigation. But the City contends that the records here are exempt under our two-part test for investigatory records set out in State ex rel. Neb. Health Care Assn. [28] In State ex rel. Neb. Health Care Assn., we modified a standard used by federal courts that determined whether an agency can withhold records under exemption 7 of the federal FOIA. [29] Under specified conditions, exemption 7 allows agencies to withhold records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes. In determining whether a public body compiled records for law enforcement purposes, some federal courts apply a two-part test. First, the agency's investigatory activities must relate to the enforcement of laws or the maintenance of national security. Second, the relationship between the investigation and one of the agency's law enforcement duties must sufficiently support at least a colorable claim of its rationality. [30] We modified the two-part test in State ex rel. Neb. Health Care Assn. to also apply to a public body's investigatory records. There, we defined investigatory records: [A] public record is an investigatory record where (1) the activity giving rise to the document sought is related to the duty of investigation or examination with which the public body is charged and (2) the relationship between the investigation or examination and that public body's duty to investigate or examine supports a colorable claim of rationality. [31] The two-part test provides a deferential burden-of-proof rule for a public body performing an investigation or examination with which it is charged. But, as we recognized in State ex rel. Neb. Health Care Assn., the investigatory exception does not apply to protect material compiled ancillary to an agency's routine administrative functions or oversight activities. [32] Federal courts have held that exemption 7 applies only when the investigation involves an agency's investigation of non-agency personnel and of activities external to the agency's own operations [33] and only when the agency aims its investigation with special intensity on a particular party. [34] Exemption 7 does not apply to material compiled during internal agency investigations in which an agency, acting as the employer, simply supervises its own employees. Exemption 7 does not cover this matter even if the investigation of internal activities reveals evidence that could later cause a law enforcement investigation. [35] If the exemption covered all monitoring of employees' activities, the exemption would swallow the disclosure rule. As the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, Any internal auditing or monitoring conceivably could result in disciplinary action, in dismissal, or indeed in criminal charges against the employees. [36] But exempting all internal audits from disclosure would permit the exemption to defeat the purpose of the public records laws  to provide public access to information concerning the Government's own activities. [37] The government must therefore show that the agency compiled the investigatory records for adjudicatory or enforcement purposes and not general agency monitoring of its programs and employees. [38] And `[a]n agency's investigation of its own employees is for law enforcement purposes only if it focuses directly on specifically alleged illegal acts, acts which could, if proved, result in civil or criminal sanctions.' [39] [22-24] We agree that an investigation of a public body's employee is for law enforcement purposes if the alleged acts could result in a civil or criminal sanction. Although § 84-712.05(5) does not refer to law enforcement purposes, it does refer to law enforcement agencies and public bodies charged with investigating or examining persons, institutions, or businesses. We interpret this language to mean investigations or examinations for performing adjudicatory or law enforcement functions. Otherwise, the exemption could exempt a broad spectrum of materials that included records related to official misconduct or general government activity. A broad interpretation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the Legislature's policy for disclosure. For the same reason, we also agree that § 84-712.05(5) should only apply to an investigation of a public body's employees if the investigation focuses on specifically alleged illegal acts. Here, the complaints focused on racial profiling, an illegal act. Nebraska statutes prohibit racial profiling. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-502 (Reissue 2007) provides that no law enforcement agency in this state shall engage in racial profiling. Yet, the Legislature has not enacted any criminal sanctions for this statute or authorized any state agency to investigate allegations of racial profiling. [40] Thus, the only means the City had to enforce the statute arose from Robinson's supervisory power to investigate the job performance of the City's law enforcement officials. Robinson, as the mayor, had statutory responsibility to ensure that the City complied with all governing laws and had the power to remove police officers. [41] Although Robinson's investigation overlapped with his supervisory powers, the City was not monitoring its employees. The investigation concentrated on racial profiling and specifically zeroed in on allegations of racial profiling by Lewis. These allegations, if proved, would constitute a violation of law. We concede that the investigation could not have resulted in civil or criminal sanctions because the Legislature has not enacted enforcement provisions for racial profiling. But we conclude that the mayor's purpose in initiating the investigation was nonetheless for enforcement of the law. Because the statutes charged the mayor as the City's representative to ensure that the City complied with governing laws, we determine that the court erred in concluding that the investigatory records exemption under § 84-712.05(5) did not apply.