January 4, 1996
Mr. Steve Wormuth
P.O. Box 793
Phillipsport, NY 12769
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence, unless otherwise indicated.
Dear Mr. Wormuth:
I have received your letter of December 7 in which you complained with respect to a denial of access to records by the Division of State Police.
As I understand the matter based on your correspondence and the material sent to me by the Division as required by §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law in conjunction with your appeal, it involves a request for policies or procedure manuals pertaining to stolen vehicles. Both the request and the appeal were denied on the ground that disclosure "would endanger the life and safety" of Division employees.
In this regard, I offer the following comments.
As a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all record of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more of the grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law. From my perspective, three of the grounds for denial are relevant to an analysis of rights of access. Specifically, §87(2)(g) states that an agency may withhold records that:
"are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
i. statistical or factual tabulations or data; ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;
iii. final agency policy or determinations; or iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government..."
It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double negative. While inter-agency or intra-agency materials may be withheld, portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information, instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different basis for denial is applicable. Concurrently, those portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld. It would appear that the records sought would consist of instructions to staff that affect the public or an agency's policy. Therefore, I believe that they would be available, unless a different basis for denial could be asserted.
A second provision of potential significance is §87(2)(e), which permits an agency to withhold records that:
"are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would:
i. interfere with law enforcement investigations of judicial proceedings...
ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;
iii. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation; or
iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures."
Under the circumstances, most relevant is §87(2)(e)(iv). The leading decision concerning that provision is Fink v. Lefkowitz, which involved access to a manual prepared by a special prosecutor that investigated nursing homes, in which the Court of Appeals held that:
"The purpose of this exemption is obvious. Effective law enforcement demands that violators of the law not be apprised the nonroutine procedures by which an agency obtains its information (see Frankel v. Securities & Exch. Comm., 460 F2d 813, 817, cert den 409 US 889). However beneficial its thrust, the purpose of the Freedom of Information Law is not to enable persons to use agency records to frustrate pending or threatened investigations nor to use that information to construct a defense to impede a prosecution.
"To be distinguished from agency records compiled for law enforcement purposes which illustrate investigative techniques, are those which articulate the agency's understanding of the rules and regulations it is empowered to enforce. Records drafted by the body charged with enforcement of a statute which merely clarify procedural or substantive law must be disclosed. Such information in the hands of the public does not impede effective law enforcement. On the contrary, such knowledge actually encourages voluntary compliance with the law by detailing the standards with which a person is expected to comply, thus allowing him to conform his conduct to those requirements (see Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F2d 699, 702; Hawkes v. Internal Revenue Serv., 467 F2d 787, 794-795; Davis, Administrative Law [1970 Supp], section 3A, p 114).
"Indicative, but not necessarily dispositive of whether investigative techniques are nonroutine is whether disclosure of those procedures would give rise to a substantial likelihood that violators could evade detection by deliberately tailoring their conduct in anticipation of avenues of inquiry to be pursued by agency personnel (see Cox v. United States Dept. of Justice, 576 F2d 1302, 1307-1308; City of Concord v. Ambrose, 333 F Supp 958). It is no secret that numbers on a balance sheet can be made to do magical things by scrupulous nursing home operators the path that an audit is likely to take and alerting them to items to which investigators are instructed to pay particular attention, does not encourage observance of the law. Rather, release of such information actually countenances fraud by enabling miscreants to alter their books and activities to minimize the possibility or being brought to task for criminal activities. In such a case, the procedures contained in an administrative manual are, in a very real sense, compilations of investigative techniques exempt from disclosure. The Freedom of Information Law was not enacted to furnish the safecracker with the combination to the safe" (id. at 572-573).
In applying those criteria to specific portions of the manual, which was compiled for law enforcement purposes, the Court found that:
"Chapter V of the Special Prosecutor's Manual provides a graphic illustration of the confidential techniques used in a successful nursing home prosecution. None of those procedures are 'routine' in the sense of fingerprinting or ballistic tests (see Senate Report No. 93-1200, 93 Cong 2d Sess ). Rather, they constitute detailed, specialized methods of conducting an investigation into the activities of a specialized industry in which voluntary compliance with the law has been less then exemplary.
"Disclosure of the techniques enumerated in those pages would enable an operator to tailor his activities in such a way as to significantly diminish the likelihood of a successful prosecution. The information detailed on pages 481 and 482 of the manual, on the other hand, is merely a recitation of the obvious: that auditors should pay particular attention to requests by nursing homes for Medicaid reimbursement rate increases based upon projected increase in cost. As this is simply a routine technique that would be used in any audit, there is no reason why these pages should not be disclosed" (id. at 573).
While I am unfamiliar with the records in question, it would appear that those portions which, if disclosed, would enable potential lawbreakers to evade detection could likely be withheld. It is noted that in another decision which dealt with a request for certain regulations of the State Police, the Court of Appeals found that some aspects of the regulations were non-routine, and that disclosure could "allow miscreants to tailor their activities to evade detection" [De Zimm v. Connelie, 64 NY 2d 860 (1985)]. Nevertheless, other portions of the records might be "routine" and might not if disclosed preclude employees from carrying out their duties effectively.
Lastly, the remaining ground for denial of possible relevance is §87(2)(f). That provision permits an agency to withhold records when disclosure "would endanger the life of safety of any person." To the extent that disclosure would endanger the life of safety of officers or others, it appears that §87(2)(f) would be applicable.
In sum, while some aspects of the records, if they exist, might be deniable, others must in my opinion be disclosed in conjunction with the preceding commentary.
It is emphasized that the courts have consistently interpreted the Freedom of Information Law in a manner that fosters maximum access. As stated by the Court of Appeals more than decade ago:
"To be sure, the balance is presumptively struck in favor of disclosure, but in eight specific, narrowly constructed instances where the governmental agency convincingly demonstrates its need, disclosure will not be ordered (Public Officers Law, section 87, subd 2). Thus, the agency does not have carte blanche to withhold any information it pleases. Rather, it is required to articulate particularized and specific justification and, if necessary, submit the requested materials to the courts for in camera inspection, to exempt its records from disclosure (see Church of Scientology of N.Y. v. State of New York, 46 NY 2d 906, 908). Only where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld" [Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 NY 2d 567, 571 (1979)]."
In another decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, it was held that:
"Exemptions are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access" [Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562, 566 (1986); see also, Farbman & Sons v. New York City, 62 NY 2d 75, 80 (1984); and Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 NY 2d 567, 571 (1979)].
Moreover, in the same decision, in a statement regarding the intent and utility of the Freedom of Information Law, it was found that:
"The Freedom of Information Law expresses this State's strong commitment to open government and public accountability and imposes a broad standard of disclosure upon the State and its agencies (see, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62 NY 2d 75, 79). The statute, enacted in furtherance of the public's vested and inherent 'right to know', affords all citizens the means to obtain information concerning the day-to-day functioning of State and local government thus providing the electorate with sufficient information 'to make intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities' and with an effective tool for exposing waste, negligence and abuse on the part of government officers" (id., 565-566).
Lastly, since you referred in your letter to a request for a "master list of documents", it is assumed that the request pertains to the list required to be prepared pursuant to §87(3)(c) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision states in relevant part that:
"Each agency shall maintain...
c. a reasonably detailed current list by subject matter, of all records in the possession of the agency, whether or not available under this article."
The "subject matter list" required to be maintained under §87(3)(c) is not, in my opinion, required to identify each and every record of an agency; rather I believe that it must refer, by category and in reasonable detail, to the kinds of records maintained by an agency. Further, the regulations promulgated by the Committee on Open Government state that such a list should be sufficiently detailed to enable an individual to identify a file category of the record or records in which that person may be interested [21 NYCRR 1401.6(b)].
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Francis A. De Francesco
Hanford C. Thomas