Mr. Robert Noble, Managing Editor
Empire News Exchange
PO Box 742
Schenectady, NY 12301
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.
Dear Mr. Noble:
I have received your letter of April 23 in which you wrote that the "Empire News Exchange has been experiencing difficulty in obtaining daily log information (sometimes commonly called the 'police blotter') consisting of records of telephone calls, complaints, arrests, and other factual information from the Saratoga County Sheriff's Department." You indicated that you were informed that "because the data is only in a computer, which also contains other material to which [you] may not be entitled (names of under-age suspects, for example), that the department does not have the time and staff needed to make and review the necessary printouts."
You have sought an advisory opinion on the matter. In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to all agency records, and §86(4) of the Law defines the term "record" expansively to mean:
"any information kept, held, filed, produced, reproduced by, with or for an agency or the state legislature, in any physical form whatsoever including, but not limited to, reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes."
Based on the foregoing, irrespective of the manner in which its characterized or whether it is maintained on paper or electronically, I believe that the daily log would constitute a "record" subject to rights of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Law.
Second, as a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law. Further, it is emphasized that the introductory language of §87(2) refers to the authority to withhold "records or portions thereof" that fall within the scope of one or more of the grounds for denial that follow. Based on the quoted language, I believe that there may be situations in which a single record might be both available or deniable in part. The same language, in my opinion, imposes an obligation on an agency to review records sought in their entirety to determine which portions, if any, may justifiably be withheld. As such, even though some aspects of a police blotter or other record might properly be denied, the remainder might nonetheless be available and would have to be disclosed.
It is also noted that an applicant is not required to identify with particularity exactly which record, or perhaps which portion of a record he or she may be interested in reviewing. The Freedom of Information Law as originally enacted in 1974 required an applicant to seek "identifiable" records [see original Law, §88(6)]. The current provision, §89(3), however, merely requires that an applicant "reasonably describe" the records sought. According to two decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals, the State's highest court, if an agency can locate and identify the records based upon the terms of a request, the applicant has met the responsibility of reasonably describing the records [see M. Farbman & Sons v. New York City, 62 NY 2d 75 (1984); Konigsberg v. Coughlin, 68 NY 2d 245 (1986)]. Therefore, I do not believe that a journalist or member of the public can be required to seek a portion of a report by referring to a specific incident. Rather, an applicant could, in my opinion, request a report or reports as they pertain to particular days or dates.
As you may be aware, the phrase "police blotter" is not specifically defined in any statute. It is my understanding that it is a term that has been used, in general, based upon custom and usage. The contents of what might be characterized as a police blotter may vary from one police department to another and often police departments use different terms for records or reports analogous to police blotters. In Sheehan v. City of Binghamton [59 AD 2d 808 (1977)], it was determined that, based on custom and usage, a police blotter is a log or diary in which any event reported by or to a police department is recorded. The decision specified that a traditional police blotter contains no investigative information, but rather merely a summary of events or occurrences and that, therefore, it is accessible under the Freedom of Information Law. When a police blotter or other record is analogous to that described in Sheehan in terms of its contents, I believe that the public would have the right to review it in its entirety.
If the logs in question are more expansive than the traditional police blotter described in Sheehan, portions might be withheld, depending upon their contents and the effects of disclosure. Several grounds for denial may be relevant, and it is emphasized that many of them are based upon potentially harmful effects of disclosure. The following paragraphs will review the grounds for denial that may be significant.
The initial ground for withholding, §87(2)(a), pertains to records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute". In brief, when a statute exempts particular records from disclosure, those records may, in my view, be considered "confidential". For instance, a log entry other record might refer to the arrest of a juvenile. In that circumstance, a record or portion thereof might be withheld due to the confidentiality requirements imposed by the Family Court Act (see §784).
Also of potential significance is §87(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Law, which permits an agency to withhold records or portions thereof when disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". It might be applicable relative to the deletion of identifying details in a variety of situations, such as domestic disputes, complaints that neighbors' dogs are barking, or where a record identifies a confidential source or a witness, for example.
The next ground for denial of relevance 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 or 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."
In my opinion, a record containing the kind of information described in Sheehan could likely be characterized as a record compiled in the ordinary course of business, rather than a record "compiled for law enforcement purposes". When that it so, §87(2)(e) would not be applicable. More detailed reports, such as investigative reports, would likely fall within the scope of §87(2)(e). Those records would be accessible or deniable, depending upon their contents and the effects of disclosure.
Another ground for denial of possible relevance is §87(2)(f), which permits withholding to the extent that disclosure "would endanger the life or safety of any person." The capacity to withhold on that basis is dependent upon the facts and circumstances concerning an event.
The last relevant ground for denial is §87(2)(g). The cited provision permits an agency to 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 ground for denial could appropriately be asserted. 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.
Since the logs are prepared by employees of a police department, I believe that they could be characterized as "intra-agency material". However, if indeed they consist of factual information, §87(2)(g) could not, in my opinion, be asserted as a basis for denial.
Further, although they are not specifically mentioned in the current Freedom of Information Law, the original Law granted access to "police blotters and booking records" [see original Law, §88(1)(f)]. In my opinion, even though reference to those records is not made in the current statute, I believe that such records continue to be available, for the present law was clearly intended to broaden rather than restrict rights of access. Moreover, it was held by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, more than ten years ago that, that unless sealed under §160.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law, records of the arresting agency identifying those arrested must be disclosed [see Johnson Newspapers v. Stainkamp, 61 NY 2d 958 (1984)].
In sum, the possibility that some aspects of the records might properly be withheld does not enable an agency to withhold them in their entirety. Rather, I believe that an agency must disclose records, to the extent required by the Freedom of Information Law, perhaps after having made deletions in accordance with the grounds for denial appearing in the Law. Third, as suggested earlier, when information is maintained in some physical form, it would in my opinion constitute a "record" subject to rights of access conferred by the Law. Since the definition of "record" includes specific reference to computer tapes and discs, it was held some sixteen years ago that "[i]nformation is increasingly being stored in computers and access to such data should not be restricted merely because it is not in printed form" [Babigian v. Evans, 427 NYS 2d 688, 691 (1980); aff'd 97 AD 2d 992 (1983); see also, Szikszay v. Buelow, 436 NYS 2d 558 (1981)].
When information is maintained electronically, in a computer, for example, it has been advised that if the information sought is available under the Freedom of Information Law and may be retrieved by means of existing computer programs, an agency is required to disclose the information. In that kind of situation, the agency in my view would merely be retrieving data that it has the capacity to retrieve. Disclosure may be accomplished either by printing out the data on paper or perhaps by duplicating the data on another storage mechanism, such as a computer tape or disk. On the other hand, if information sought can be retrieved from a computer or other storage medium only by means of new programming or the alteration of existing programs, those steps would, in my opinion, be the equivalent of creating a new record. Because §89(3) states that an agency is not required to create a record, I do not believe that an agency would be required to reprogram or develop new programs to retrieve information that would otherwise be available [see Guerrier v. Hernandez-Cuebas, 165 AD 2d 218 (1991)].
Under the circumstances that you described, I believe that the Department in my opinion would be required to print out the log and disclose its contents, following deletions made where appropriate pursuant to the grounds for denial appearing in §87(2) of the Freedom of Information Law. As an aside, I believe that there is software that has been developed concerning police blotter entries that segregates accessible and deniable information. For instance, if an entry pertains to a juvenile offender, it is coded and automatically removed from a printout generated later. With that kind of program, the blotter or its equivalent can be disclosed without engaging in a review of the record to determine the extent to which deletions may properly be made.
Lastly, it has been held judicially that a shortage of manpower to comply with a request does not constitute a valid basis for a denial of access to records. In United Federation of Teachers v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which involved a request for some 1,500 records, it was stated that:
"Were the court to recognize the 'defense' of a shortage of manpower by the agency from which disclosure is sought, it would thwart the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Law and make possible the circumvention of the public policy embodied in the Act" [428 NYS 2d 823, 824 (1980].
In short, I do not believe that an agency can reject a request based on a contention that lacks the staff needed to review the records.
In an effort to enhance compliance with and understanding of the Freedom of Information Law, copies of this opinion will be forwarded to Department officials.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Kathy Marchione
Sheriff James Bowen