The Petitioners in this CPLR Article 78 action had requested the Suffolk County Police Department [SCPD] produce investigatory and disciplinary records relating to allegations of misconduct involving SCPD's sworn police officers.
SCPD granted so much of the Petitioners' FOIL request as involved disciplinary records related to allegations of police officer misconduct classified as "substantiated," with "authorized redactions" but denied so much of the Petitioners' FOIL request it deemed involved investigatory and disciplinary records related to allegations of police officer misconduct classified as unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated. Petitioners appealed SCPD's withholding those records it deemed "unsubstantiated," "unfounded," or "exonerated" with respect to certain police officers on the ground that such records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(b).
Supreme Court directed SCPD to disclose unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated allegations records of alleged police officer misconduct, subject to any authorized redactions or exemptions authorized by law. SCPD appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division, observing that "FOIL proceeds under the premise that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government", opined "[a]ll government records are presumptively open for public inspection and copying unless they fall within one of the enumerated exemptions of Public Officers Law §87(2)".
Citing Matter of Gannett Co., Inc. v Town of Greenburgh Police Dept., 229 AD3d 789, the Appellate Division opined "Contrary to [SCPD's] contention", the withheld records of unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated allegations of police officer misconduct "were not categorically exempt from disclosure".
In the words of the Appellate Division: "Disclosure of the withheld records of unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated allegations of police officer misconduct was therefore required unless those records '[fell] squarely within the ambit of one of [the] statutory exemptions [set out in Public Officers Law §87(2)]'".
Although SCPD had relied on the privacy exemption set out in Public Officers Law §87(2)(b) in denying the production of certain records, the Appellate Division explained that the privacy exemption "authorizes an agency to deny access to records or portions of such records that 'if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'" and that FOIL directs "disclosure shall not be construed to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' when, among other possibilities, identifying details are deleted".
Further, opined the Appellate Division, "Consistent with the policy of broad public access, the exemptions are to be narrowly construed, and the burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material qualifies for exemption" and to "meet its burden, the party seeking exemption must present specific, persuasive evidence that the materials falls within the exemption".
As SCPD had withheld the requested records containing "unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated allegations of police officer misconduct in their entirety and did not articulate any particularized and specific justification for withholding any of those records," the Appellate Division concluded SCPD "did not meet [its] burden of establishing that the privacy exemption applied".
Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, holding that the lower court had properly directed SCPD to disclose records of unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated allegations of police officer misconduct, "subject to any [FOIL] authorized redactions or exemptions".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.