August 7, 2002
Mr. Rasool Salaam
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in your correspondence.
Dear Mr. Salaam:
I have received your letter in which you sought assistance in obtaining videotapes of events occurring at your facility.
In this regard, 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.
In a case involving a request for videotapes made under the Freedom of Information Law, it was unanimously found by the Appellate Division that:
"...an inmate in a State correctional facility has no legitimate expectation of privacy from any and all public portrayal of his person in the facility...As Supreme Court noted, inmates are well aware that their movements are monitored by video recording in the institution. Moreover, respondents' regulations require disclosure to news media of an inmate's 'name *** city of previous residence, physical description, commitment information, present facility in which housed, departmental actions regarding confinement and release' (7 NYCRR 5.21 [a]). Visual depiction, alone, of an inmate's person in a correctional facility hardly adds to such disclosure" [Buffalo Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. NYS Department of Correctional Services, 155 AD 2d 106, 111-112 (1990)].
Nevertheless, the Court stated that "portions of the tapes showing inmates in states of undress, engaged in acts of personal hygiene or being subjected to strip frisks" could be withheld as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (id., 112), and that "[t]here may be additional portrayals on the tapes of inmates in situations which would be otherwise unduly degrading or humiliating, disclosure of which 'would result in *** personal hardship to the subject party' (Public Officers Law § 89  [b] [iv])" (id.). The court also found that some aspects of videotapes might be withheld on the ground that disclosure would endanger the lives or safety of inmates or correctional staff under §87(2)(f).
Further, in another case involving videotapes of events occurring at a correctional facility, in the initial series of decisions relating to a request for videotapes of uprisings at a correctional facility, it was determined that a blanket denial of access was inconsistent with law [Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v. NYS Department of Correctional Services, 155 AD2d 106]. Following the agency's review of the videotapes and the making of a series of redactions, a second Appellate Division decision affirmed the lower court's determination to disclose various portions of the tapes that depicted scenes that could have been seen by the general inmate population. However, other portions, such as those showing "strip frisks" and the "security system switchboard", were found to have been properly withheld on the grounds, respectively, that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and endanger life and safety [see 174 AD2d 212 (1992)].
In sum, based on the language of the Freedom of Information Law and its judicial interpretation, I believe that the Department is required to review videotapes falling within the scope of a request to attempt to ascertain the extent to which their contents fall within the grounds for denial appearing in the statute.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman