ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

December 23, 2014

Police agency's records concerning breath alcohol measurement instruments may be obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law request


Police agency's records concerning breath alcohol measurement instruments may be obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law request
Law Offs. of Adam D. Perlmutter, P.C. v New York City Police Dept., 2014 NY Slip Op 08722, Appellate Division, First Department

The Law Offices of Adam D. Perlmutter, P.C., [Perlmutter] filed a Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request seeking “all calibration and maintenance records for all Intoxilyzer machines owned or maintained by New York City Police Department [NYPD] since January 2008”.The Intoxilyzer is a breath alcohol measurement instruments manufactured by CMI, Inc.

In response to NYPD denial of Perlmutter’s FOIL demand, Perlmutter filed an Article 78 petition. Supreme Court seeking a court order annulling NYPD’s decision and an order directing the NYPD to disclose the records sought by Perlmutter.

Relying on provisions set out in Public Officers Law §87, NYPD had contended that the records "are compiled for law enforcement purposes and . . . , if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings," as such records are often requested in “Driving While Intoxicated” [DWI] cases involving Intoxilyzer test results and that thousands of such cases are pending in New York City.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling and rejected NYPD’s claim that the records sought by Perlmutter were exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIL.

The court noted NYPD’s FOIL arguments are not properly before it because the exemption to FOIL was not cited by NYPD at the administrative level. However, the Appellate Division continued, “Were we to review it, we would reject [NYPD's arguments] on the merits, since the statute cited by [NYPD] does not exempt the records from disclosure.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.