A union representing county sheriffs deputies sought to enjoin a newspaper from publishing newspaper articles about the sheriff's department's hiring of officers who used to work for the county's Office of Public Safety. The union claimed that the newspaper had information and documents from the job applications and background checks of the deputies, including accusations about past acts of misconduct. An intermediate California appeals court granted the newspaper's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion, because the public possessed a strong interest in learning about the conduct and qualifications of the deputies. There is a strong constitutional prohibition against prior restraint of publication under the First Amendment, and the injunction sought was not content neutral. The complaint seeking the injunction was stricken. Assn. for LA Deputy Sheriffs v. LA Times, #B253083, 239 Cal. App. 4th 808, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 564 (2015).
     The California Supreme Court upheld the denial of a police union's request fo an injunction barring the release of the names of officers involved in specified on-duty shootings. The court found that no exemption under the state public records law applied, and in weighing the competing interests, the balance tipped strongly in favor of disclose over an individual officer's privacy. This left open the presenting of evidence that the disclosure of a particular officer's name would compromise the safety of the officer or their family. Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, #S200872, 59 Cal. 4th 59, 325 P.3d 460, 2014 Cal. Lexis 3757.
     Two former police officers sued a municipality, claiming that they had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment. They asked for mental anguish damages and the defendant municipality attempted to engage in discovery regarding the basis for their mental anguish claims. The plaintiffs refused to comply with the discovery requests, asserting that physician and psychotherapist doctor-patient privilege protected their medical, prescription, and psychological counseling records. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, concluding that a plaintiff asserting "garden-variety" mental anguish claims in the context of an employment discrimination lawsuit did not constitute an automatic waiver of the applicable privileges. Kennedy v. Municipality of Anchorage, #S-14762, 2013 Alas. Lexis 104.
     A state criminal trial court properly barred a defendant from having his attorney view the entire personnel file of the officer who testified against him on a drug charge. After the court examined the entire file in camera, it was determined that only five pages of the file were relevant in any way to the officer's supposed motive to falsely testify or his credibility. The officer's general character was not an element of any charge, claim or defense in the proceeding. People v. Collins, 2013 IL App (2d) 110915, 985 N.E.2d 613, 2013 Ill. App. Lexis 73, 368 Ill. Dec. 806.
     A freedom of information law in Virginia granted access to all public records to citizens of the state, but denied access to those who were not state citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that this did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution nor the Privileges and Immunities Clause, since that only protects those privileges and immunities regarded as fundamental. McBurney v. Young, #12-17 133 S. Ct. 1709.
     After police officers and motorcycle club members had a battle that left two officers wounded and one club member dead, a newspaper sought under an Ohio state public records law to compel a police chief to reveal information about the identities of the wounded officers. The Ohio Supreme Court held that law enforcement agencies may withhold the identity of officers who face substantiated threats of injury or death in retaliation for their job-related actions. An officers’ constitutional right to privacy and personal protection supersedes the state's public records laws. Revealing the wounded officers' identities to the media under these circumstances could place them at risk of serious harm. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, #2011-1798, 2012 Ohio 1999, 2012 Ohio Lexis 1024.
     A former parole agent for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appealed the denial of his request to see and review his personnel and internal affairs files. An intermediate California appeals court ruled that former employees have no right under the state Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq to review their records. The plaintiff had been terminated six months earlier, and only had the right under the statute to review his records up until the effective date of his termination. He was given notice of the intent to terminate him, advised of his right to contest the termination, and given copies of all documents relied on in making the decision. He did not show that any relevant documents were withheld from that prior disclosure. Barber v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation, #E052296, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 134 (2nd Dist.).
     The names of police officers involved in shootings were not made confidential by any of the possible exemptions in the California Public Records Act. The trial court therefore, properly refused to approve a police officers' association request to enjoin the disclosure of the names to a newspaper. Long Beach Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Long Beach, #B231245. 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 109 (Cal. App.).
      An intermediate Ohio appeals court ruled that a city police department properly withheld the names of individual undercover police officers from copies of internal investigation records it provided to a newspaper in response to their request for public records. The identities of the officers were exempt from the definition of a public record under state law and their release could result in injury to them, in violation of their fundamental right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. "[W]e determine that the officers’ interest in protecting themselves and their families from serious bodily harm outweighs the public’s interest in uncovering the individual officer’ names." The records sought concerned an incident in which shots were exchanged between officers and members of a motorcycle club they were investigating. State of Ohio Ex Rel. The Cincinnati Enquirer v. Streicher, #C-100820, 2011 Ohio App. Lexis 3766; subsequently referred to mediation, #2011-1798, 2011 Ohio 5604, 2011 Ohio Lexis 2702.
     A deputy sheriff called into a talk radio program and stated that the current sheriff was not a good fit for the job. In response, the sheriff called in and replied that the deputy was a "slacker," and made statements about the deputy's disciplinary record, saying it involved sexual harassment of another employee, when it actually involved violation of a rule against offensive conduct or language. The deputy sued the sheriff for unlawful retaliation against him for exercising his First Amendment rights in criticizing the sheriff. A federal appeals court rejected this claim, because "(w)e cannot afford one party his right to free speech while discounting the rights of the other party." The appeals court also rejected claims that the sheriff, in making the statements about the deputy's alleged disciplinary record, violated Wisconsin laws concerning privacy and open public records. The open records statute did not apply, as there was no actual release of a public record. As for privacy, the court found that there was no genuine public interest in keeping the record of the concluded disciplinary investigation closed to the public.  Hutchins v. Clarke, #10-2661, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 21475  (7th Cir.)
    Florida appellate court denies the release of law enforcement videos to an adult club owner, made under the state's public records law, unless the faces of undercover officers are obscured. Rameses v. Demings, #5D09-208, 2010 Fla. App. Lexis 2867.
     Police union prevails on a FOIA request seeking disclosure of a survey conducted by a college class, administered to police officers, civilian employees, and residents of certain neighborhoods, assessing police performance and measuring job satisfaction. The survey was not exempt as an "audit." Rockford PBA, v. Morrissey, #2-09-0100, 2010 Ill. App. Lexis 42 (2nd Dist.).
     The Illinois' Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/7, does not compel disclosure of the criteria or standards used to evaluate the physical abilities tests administered to firefighter applicants. "The disclosures sought have no connection to the city's hiring practices but rather would merely serve to assuage plaintiff's own disbelief that he actually failed the physical examination." Kopchar v. City of Chicago, #1-08-1835, 2009 Ill. App. Lexis 1066 (1st Dist.).
     Appellate court requires disclosure of officer's private mobile phone records to criminal defense attorney arising from a DUI traffic stop. The defendant claimed that part of the dash-cam video was missing. State v. Ortiz, #27,544, 2009 NMCA 92, 215 P.3d 811, 2009 N.M. App. Lexis 104.
     Police internal affairs files in Illinois are public records, even if investigators conclude that the accused officer(s) did not engage in misconduct. Gekas v. Williamson, #4-08-0733. 2009 Ill. App. Lexis 687 (4th Dist.).
     Federal court rejects most of the objections raised by the FBI to publication of a 500-page manuscript critical of the Bureau’s counterterrorism program. The manuscript had been submitted for pre-publication review in October 2001 by a retired agent. "In its efforts to suppress this information, the FBI repeatedly changed its position, presented formalistic objections to release of various portions of the documents in question, admitted finally that much of the material it sought to suppress was in fact in the public domain and had been all along, and now concedes that several of the reasons it originally offered for censorship no longer have any validity." Wright v. FBI, #02-915 & #03-226, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38931 (D.D.C.).
     In denying additional discovery in a case alleging religious discrimination against a police officer, the court noted that the attorney’s "extensive but inept and wholly unsuccessful efforts to conduct class actions have drawn unusually pointed criticisms from Illinois state judges." Sommerfield v. City of Chicago, #06-C-3132, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39430 (N.D. Ill.).
     In a discovery request, a California appellate court affirms a trial court ruling that a police dept. properly withheld internal investigative materials that it was not authorized to use in making personnel determinations. McMahon v. City of Los Angeles, #B206254, 172 Cal.App.4th 1324, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 68, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 510 (2nd Dist).
      Rescinding a Memorandum of Oct. 12, 2001, Attorney General Eric Holder issues new Freedom of Information guidelines pursuant to President Obama’s policy, directing all executive branch departments and agencies to maintain a presumption of openness and to take affirmative steps to make information public. The DoJ will defend a FOIA request only if the agency reasonably foresees that a disclosure would harm a statutorily protected interest or the disclosure is prohibited by law. (Memo dated Mar. 19, 2009).
    The Justice Dept. Office of Legal Counsel has issued an Opinion concluding that "It is legally permissible for the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena for reports of Dept. of Justice interviews with the Vice President and senior White House staff taken during the Department’s investigation ... into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency."
     Police reports don’t lose their status as public records simply because they are converted into a database. File processing information, called metadata, is not a public record. “We do not question that metadata may contain valuable information, but we reject [the] contention that electronic evidence is legally equivalent to a public record.” Lake v. City of Phoenix, CV #07-0415, 2009 WL 73256 (Ariz. App. Div. 1).
     After a former town employee confidentially settled her claim of age discrimination, a newspaper article reported that she received $40,000. Her suit against the city must be dismissed. There was no evidence that the publicity affected her employment opportunities or business prospects. Boland v. Town of Newington, #07-3310-cv, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25345 (2nd Cir.).
     Noting that the U.S. Government widely disseminated photos of emaciated prisoners and corpses found in Japanese and German WWII prison camps, the Second Circuit upholds a FOIA action to release 21 photographs depicting abusive treatment of detainees by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. ACLU v. Dept. of Defense, #06-3140-cv, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20074 (2nd Cir.).
     California appellate court holds that city officials must not disclose police officer personnel records and must cease permitting the public to access the Police Review Commission's investigations, reports, hearings, and findings. Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, #A118537, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1567 (1st Dist.).
     California Supreme Court orders POST to disclose the names, employing agencies, hiring and termination dates of peace officers included in the Commission's database. Cmsn. on Peace Officer Stds. & Trng. v. Super. Ct. of Sacramento Co. (L.A. Times), #S134072, 2007 Cal. Lexis 8916.
     Ninth Circuit finds that FOIA disclosure of two Presidential Daily Briefs written for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s could "reveal protected intelligence sources and methods." The Court rejected a per se status exemption for PDBs." Berman v. C.I.A., #05-16820, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21072 (9th Cir.).
     First Circuit holds that the FBI has a qualified privilege to protect sensitive law enforcement techniques and procedures from disclosure to another jurisdiction. Comm. of Puerto Rico v. U.S., #06-2449, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14030 (1st Cir.).
     Fourth Circuit upholds a District Court's refusal to enforce a DoJ subpoena for I-A interviews of police officers. The creation of a so-called Garrity Review Team in the U.S. Attorney's Office was insufficient reason to enforce the subpoena. I-A investigators "face an uphill battle due to the so-called 'blue wall,' the tendency of law enforcement officers to place solidarity above all else and to be less than fully cooperative with investigations of fellow officers. Officers who report misconduct are ostracized and harassed; become targets of complaints and even physical threats; and are made to fear that they will be left alone on the streets in a time of crisis." In Re Grand Jury, G.J. 2005-2, #06-4612, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3809 (4th Cir. 2007).
     In a dissolution of marriage action, a deputy sheriff's spouse was entitled to have an in-camera review of her husband's personnel records. Slayton v. Superior Ct. of Sutter Co., #C053780, 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 2051 (3d App. Dist. 2006). [N/R]
     Ninth Circuit rules against a DEA forensic chemist who sued under the privacy act because the U.S. Attorney disclosed information to a criminal defendant that the chemist had lied in another proceeding. The disclosures qualify for the "routine use" exception to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S. Code §552a(b)(3) and there was no evidence of retaliation against the employee. Burnett v. DoJ, #04-56814, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30203 (Unpub. 9th Cir.). {N/R}
     Newspaper was entitled to learn the names of high-earning police officer and firefighter pension recipients. Detroit Free Press v. City of Southfield, #260083, 269 Mich. App. 275, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 3151; appeal denied, #130438, 713 N.W.2d 776, 2006 Mich. Lexis 985(2006). {N/R}
     National Security Archive sues the Central Intelligence Agency, claiming that the Agency has unlawfully assessed the Archive for FOIA searches, contrary to the ruling in Nat. Secur. Archive v. DoD, 880 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Nat. Secur. Archive v. C.I.A., #1:06CV01080 (D.D.C., Filed 2006). {N/R}
    Florida appellate court holds that the financial supporters to a website that was used to fund litigation against a city government are entitled to remain anonymous. Discovery would have a chilling effect on anonymous supporters of political causes that feared retaliation. Matthews v. City of Maitland, #5D05-2716, 2006 Fla. App. Lexis 4224 (5th App. Dist. 2006). {N/R}
     Missouri appellate court allows a person who is accused of assaulting officers to obtain internal investigation statements from the arresting officers and other citizens who have complained about the officers. State of Missouri ex rel. Springfield v. Brown, #27027, 2005 Mo. App. Lexis 1697 (2005). {N/R}
     President issues an Executive Order to improve the processing of information requests, which requires agencies to designate a Chief FOIA Officer and to create FOIA Requester Service Centers. "Improving Agency Disclosure of Information," Executive Order 13392 (Dec. 14, 2005). {N/R}
     Missouri appellate court rules that the state's Sunshine Law on public records requires cities to release police internal affairs records to a man charged with assault on three police officers. State of Mo. ex rel. Springfield v. Brown, # 27027, 2005 Mo. App. Lexis 1697 (2005). {N/R}
     California appellate court orders a crime task force to comply with the open meeting requirements where public policy does not compel a different result. McKee v. L.A. Interagency Metro. Police Apprehension Crime Task Force, #B179548, 134 Cal.App.4th 354, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 1825, 36 Cal.Rptr. 3d 47 (2d App. Dist. 2005). {N/R}
     Law article: "Ready . . . Aim . . . FOIA! -- A Survey of the Freedom of Information Act in the Post-9/11 United States," by Ava Barbour, Boston Public Interest Law Journal, 13 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 203 (Spring, 2004). {N/R}
     Names and other identifying information can be redacted from documents provided on a FOIA request to avoid unwanted contact or harassment of government employees. Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #04-0944, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14779 (D.D.C. 2005). The complaint is on the EPIC website. {N/R}
     The state secrets privilege was sufficient grounds to dismiss a race discrimination lawsuit brought against the CIA by an African American operations officer. Attempts by a court to safeguard Agency secrets "still entail considerable risk ... placing covert agents and intelligence sources alike at grave personal risk." Sterling v. Tenet, #04-1495, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15945 (D.D.C. 2005). {N/R}
     In a defamation lawsuit, a judge in N.Y. City orders an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of a person that sent an e-mail to the governing board of a national organization that accused its chief executive of nonfinancial dishonesty. Public Rel. Soc. of Amer. v. Road Runner Online, #116210/04, 2005 NY Slip Op 25227, 2005 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 1155 (N.Y. Co. Sup. 2005) relying on the rationale established in Sony Music v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). {N/R}      Connecticut Supreme Court holds that a town failed to meet its burden of showing that the public release of high-resolution aerial photos would compromise public security. Director of Technology, Town of Greenwich v. Freedom of Information Cmsn., #SC 17262, 874 A.2d 785, 274 Conn. 179, 2005 Conn. Lexis 218 (2005). {N/R}
     In a FOIA action, a memorandum prepared by the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that analyzed whether state and local law enforcement officers may lawfully enforce federal immigration laws, was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the DoJ had incorporated the memo into agency policy. Natl. Council of La Raza v. Dept. of Justice, #04-5474, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9911 (2d Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Pennsylvania appellate court holds that a newspaper wasn't entitled, under the state's public records law, to obtain a public official's itemized cellular telephone bills, citing concerns of potential identity theft. Tribune-Review Publ. Co. v. Bodack, #427 C.D. 2004, 2005 Pa. Commw. Lexis 234 (Pa. App. 2005). {N/R}
     California appellate court holds that the salaries of highly paid law enforcement officers and public officials are not confidential personnel records, and disclosure to the media is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy or a violation of the state constitutional provision protecting personal privacy. Int. Feder. of Prof. Eng. L-21 and Superior Court (Contra Co. Newspapers), #A108488, 128 Cal.App.4th 586, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 607 (1st Dist. 2005). {N/R}
     New York's highest court holds that the FDNY was required by the state's Freedom of Information Law to disclose tapes and transcripts of various conversations on and after September 11, 2001. New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Dept., #13, 2005 N.Y. Lexis 452 (N.Y. March 24, 2005). {N/R}
     For the first time, a federal court orders the CIA to disclose a prior budget in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit -- brought by a pro se plaintiff who specializes in challenging government secrecy classifications. The 1963 budget was previously declassified. Aftergood v. Central Intelligence Agency, #01-2524 (D.D.C. 2005). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds a gubernatorial order banning state workers from giving interviews to two Baltimore reporters. Publishers and journalists have no greater rights to access than members of the public. The Sun v. Ehrlich, #1:04-cv-03822, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2082 (D.Md. 2005) citing Snyder v. Ringgold, #97-1358, 1998 WL 13528, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 562 (Unpub. 4th Cir. 1998) and Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). [2005 FP Apr.]
     Federal appeals court affirms a district court decision to unseal documents related to the VSP's investigation of a murder where the release of the documents would not affect the integrity of the investigation. Virginia State Police v. The Washington Post, #04-1375, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20629 (4th Cir.2004). {N/R}
     Federal court allows a plaintiff to subpoena an officer's medical and claims history, notwithstanding confidentiality privileges and privacy laws. The plaintiff claimed the officer shot him in the back because he was physically unable to chase him due to physical impairments. Hutton v. City of Martinez, #C02-1606, 219 F.R.D. 164, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19852 (N.D. Cal. 2003). [2004 FP Nov]
     Incident reports prepared by police officers pertaining to the use of force are subject to production pursuant to the state's Freedom of Information Law. New York Civil Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, #95, 2004 N.Y. Lexis 1602 (N.Y. 2004). {N/R}
     California appeals court reverses a trial judge that ordered a sheriff's dept. to produce an I-A report without redacting those portions reflecting the investigating officer's analysis and conclusions. Haggerty v. Super. Ct. San Diego Co., (Guindazola), #D043033, 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 565 (4th Dist. App. 2004). {N/R}
     Supreme Court finds that the release of gruesome body photos is not required under the FOIA's exception for "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" if their production "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." National Archives v. Favish, 02-954, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 2004 U.S. Lexis 2546 (2004) construing 5 U.S. Code §552(b)(7)(C). {N/R}
     Federal court rules that curious historians did not have legal standing to challenge Executive Order 13233, by which the heirs of a deceased or disabled former president can block public access to Presidential records. American Historical Assn. v. National Archives, #01-2447, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5137 (D.D.C. 2004). {N/R}
     Virginia Supreme Court rules that e-mails between public officials are not subject to the state's FOIA, because like letters, they were not simultaneous. Beck v. Shelton, #030723, 2004 Va. Lexis 40 (2004). {N/R}
     A federal court has held that a defendant in a civil wrongful death action could take the Fifth Amendment when the plaintiffs sought to take his deposition. Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, #00 C 2905, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2060 (N.D. Ill. 2004), citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 at 316, 96 S. Ct. 1551 (1976). [2004 FP Apr]
     Texas Attorney General rules that a public official or public employee's journal of public events is subject to disclosure under the state's Public Information Act, even if the book was purchased with personal funds and kept at home. Texas A.G. Opin. OR2004-0327 (2004). {N/R}
     The Defense Dept's Inspector General will no longer post routine audits on its website. Reports must now be "specifically approved for public release." "Inspector General Data Posted on the Inspector General Web Site," staff memo dated 5 Dec. 2003. {N/R}
     The Florida Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the City of Clearwater was not required to release the personal e-mails of city employees simply because they were sent on city-owned computers while on city time. Times Publishing Co. v. City of Clearwater, #2SC02-1694, 2003 Fla. Lexis 1534 (2003). {N/R}
     Appellate court denies a FOIA request for the cellular phone records of five staff members of the Florida House of Representatives. The Republican Party, not the state, paid for the cellular phones. Media Gen. Oper. v. Feeney, #02-2849, 849 So. 2d 3, 2003 Fla. App. Lexis 2023 (Fla. App. 1st Dist. 2003). {N/R}
     Texas appeals court holds that a police officer's disciplinary record is subject to the state's freedom of information laws. Abbott v. City of Corpus Christi, #03-02-00785-CV, 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 4600 (3rd Dist. Austin, 2003). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit affirms the criminal contempt conviction of a researcher who violated a protective order when he gave copies of 79 LAPD files to TV journalists, exposing efforts by officials to shield officers from domestic violence prosecutions. Supreme Court denies review. Mullally v. City of Los Angeles, #01-55620, 49 Fed. Appx. 190, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 22535 (Unpub. 9th Cir. 2002) Cert. denied, 2003 U.S. Lexis 3025 (2003). [2003 FP Jul]
     Police officers' Assn. loses suit to uncover the public defender's database of police officers. It is not a "public record," and if it is, it would be exempt because the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Coronado Police Officers Assn. v. Carroll, #D039198, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 331 (4th Dist. 2003). {N/R}
     City of New York ordered to release hundreds of audio and written Fire Dept. records related to the 9-11 response at the World Trade Center. The state trial court exempted internal documents that could be used to create and amend policies, but noted that firefighters and communications operators are not entitled to the same expectations of privacy as citizens. New York Times Co. v. City of N.Y. Fire Dept., #110753/0, N.Y. Co. Supreme Ct., N.Y (Misc. 2003). {N/R}
     Texas appellate court holds that the state's Public Information Act required a city to disclose the reasons it rejected a police applicant. A statutory exception for internal records that, if released, would interfere with law enforcement did not apply. City of Fort Worth v. Cornyn, #03-02-00074-CV, 86 S.W.3d 320, 2002 Tex. App. Lexis 6643, 19 IER Cases (BNA) 120 (Tex. App.3d Dist. 2002). {N/R}
     Media in Washington state will receive the names of terminated or disciplined state workers who sent abusive e-mails, along with a copy of the e-mails. The information was sought under the Washington Public Disclosure Act. A Superior Court rejected an injunction sought by the union, but permitted the names of nondisciplined workers to be redacted before the mail is released. Wash. Feder. of St. Employees v. St. of Wash., Thurston Co. Super. Ct. #02-2-00679-2, 40 (1963) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 574 (2002). {N/R}
     Florida appeals court holds that private or personal e-mails sent or received by public employees, using a city computer, do not become "public records" for the purpose of release to the news media. Times Publishing Co. v. City of Clearwater, #2D01-3055, 2002 Fla. App. Lexis 9414 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 2002). [2002 FP Sep]
     Police internal affairs filed were not exempt from the state's FOI Act. Chief of Police, Hartford v. Freedom of Infor. Cmsn., 746 A.2d 1264, 252 Conn. 377, 2000 Conn. Lexis 53. {N/R}
     Maryland Supreme Court holds that a criminal defendant is entitled to a copy of police internal affairs statements of officers who will be witnesses against him. Due Process overrides a statute preserving IAD file confidentiality. Robinson v. Maryland, 354 Md. 287, 730 A.2d 181, 1999 Md. Lexis 258. See also State v. Roy, 151 Vt. 17, 557 A.2d 884 (1989); habeas corpus den., 907 F.2d 385 (2d Cir. 1990). [1999 FP 119-120]
     Newspaper loses lawsuit to compel police chief to disclose disciplinary information. Disclosure would breach promise of confidentiality. Daily Gazette Co. v. City of Schenectady, 1999 N.Y. Lexis 224, 93 N.Y.2d 145, 710 N.E.2d 1072 (reversing 673 N.Y.S.2d 783). [1999 FP 85-6]
     Florida Atty. Gen. rules that conversations between an agency's employees and the agency's legal counsel are a public record, subject to the state's Sunshine Law, and are not attorney-client privileged conversations. Fla. Advis. Legal Opin. AGO 97-61 (9-17-97). [1998 FP 154-5]
     Ohio Supreme Court holds that nonofficial e-mails between jail officers were not "public records" for the purpose of a FOIA demand. State ex rel Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Co. Sheriff's Dept., 82 Ohio St.3d 37, 693 N.E.2d 789, 1998 Ohio Lexis 1366. [1998 FP 135-6]
     In sexual harassment case (against the chief), a federal judge allows public and media to have transcripts, but not copies of tapes of the Police Commission's investigation of her complaint. Welsh v. C&C of San Francisco, 887 F.Supp. 1293 (N.D.Cal. 1995). {N/R}
     Ohio supreme court allows the media access to police personnel and discipline records; the "law enforcement exception" in the state public records law applies solely to investigatory files. Multimedia Inc. v. Snowden, 647 N.E.2d 1374; 1995 Ohio Lexis 939. [1995 FP 150-1]
     Federal court dismisses suit by undercover detectives who were featured in a TV show without digitized concealment of their faces, despite assurances from the station and producers their faces would not be recognizable. Agmt. did not confer third-party beneficiary status on officers, nor could they collect for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Does I-VI v. KTNV Ch. 13, 863 F.Supp. 1259 (D.Nev. 1994). {N/R}
     N.Y. Times editorial (7/13/95-p.A-14) critical of NYCPD investigation into "the drunken rampage by NYC cops in Washington DC." {N/R}
     Appellate court in N.Y. allows civil rights plaintiff to have reports of the police civilian review board, but could not obtain internal affairs files and documents. Flores v. City of N.Y., 615 N.Y.S.2d 400 (A.D. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rules that a federal grand jury can subpoena an officer's IAD-compelled statements. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas v. U.S., 40 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 1994); cert. den. 115 S.Ct. 1957 sub nom Nakamura v. U.S. [1995 FP 54]
     In disciplinary proceedings, under 5 U.S. Code 7114(b), unions are entitled to receive from the employer, information that is "reasonably available and necessary for full and proper" understanding of the issues. Information is not "necessary" merely because it is relevant. U.S. (DoJ/INS) v. F.L.R.A., 39 F.3d 361 (D.C.Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court upholds the dismissal of a freedom of information suit brought by a newspaper that sought production of an internal investigation file of the state police. ISP had investigated a municipal police chief for harassment. The file was exempt from disclosure. The Copley Press v. City of Springfield, 639 N.E.2d 913 (Ill.App. 1994); rev. den. 645 N.E.2d 1356 (Ill. 1995). {N/R}
     Newspaper wins suit to force disclosure of results of polygraph tests on police applicants. Records were employment records and not "confidential law enforcement investigatory records." State of Ohio v. City of Lorain, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 443 (Ohio App. 1993).
     Under Calif. Evidence Code 1045, a juvenile is entitled to discover the outcome of disciplinary proceedings stemming from an earlier citizen's complaint filed against an arresting officer, when that information is relevant to a wardship proceeding. San Jose v. Superior Court (Michael B.), 5 Cal.4th 47, 850 P.2d 621, 1993 Cal. Lexis 2270. {N/R}
     Appellate court prevents disclosure of disciplinary investigation files and supervisory performance rating records to lawyer who sued under a public records act. Law Offices of W.A. Pangman v. Zellmer, 473 N.W.2d 538 (Wis.App. 1991). [1992 FP 134]
     City of Los Angeles could release an employee's disciplinary record to the press without violating his constitutionally protected right of privacy, or statutes providing for the confidentiality of employment files. Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles, 221 Cal.App.3d 908, 270 Cal.Rptr. 711 (1990).
     California Supreme Court holds that a police officer is not entitled to inspect the notes of an internal affairs investigator prior to his "Garrity interview." Decision is a setback for unions under the state's "Bill of Rights" law. Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal. 3d 564, 797 P.2d 608 (1990).
     Federal appeals court affirms jury verdict against chief because department failed to provide accused employee relevant exculpatory matter contained in the internal affairs files; damages assessed at $1,550,000. Los Ang. Police Prot. League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879 [at 893-4], 1990 U.S. App. Lexis 11023 (9th Cir.).
     Federal court quashes Grand Jury Subpoenas that sought "Garrity" statements of officers, contained in IAD files. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Custodian of Records, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept., {Unreported} #89 Misc. 492 (E.D. Mo. 2/6/90). AELE Ref. # 5633 (Copy of Court's Order)
     City must release to news media the names of applicants for police chief job, even though applicants were told the appointment process was confidential. Bangor Publishing Co. v. City of Bangor, 544 A.2d 733 (Me. 1988).
     Citizens entitled to a court order requiring city to make public an internal investigation report concerning an ex-chief, even though city promised not to release it. Barton v. Shupe, 37 Ohio 3d 308, 525 N.E.2d 812 (1988).
     Indiana Supreme Court allows media to use cameras and recorders in disciplinary hearings. Berry v. Peoples Broadcasting Corp., 547 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. 1989); Marion Co. Sheriff's Merit Bd. v. Peoples Broadcasting Corp., 547 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. 1989).
     Montana Supreme Court upholds newspaper's right to force law enforcement agencies to disclose the names of officers who received discipline, even though the state constitution protects the right of individual privacy. Great Falls Tribune v. Cascade Co. Sheriff, 775 P.2d 1267 (Mont. 1989).
     Indiana appeals court allows presence of TV cameras at police disciplinary hearings. Berry v. Peoples Broadcasting Corp., 514 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind.App. 1987).
     Appeals court upholds use of hidden video camera installed in station to detect officer's unlawful gambling activity. Thorton v. University Civil Service Merit Board, 507 N.E.2d 1262 (Ill.App. 1987).
     Connecticut Supreme Court rejects FOIA suit by newspaper to inspect investigatory files. Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 204 Conn. 609, 529 A.2d 692 (1987).
     Firefighters lose suit against chief for making public a report and charges they used drugs; broken promise of confidentiality does not give employees a right to sue. Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1986).
     Federal court upholds an EEOC subpoena for allegedly irrelevant documents in an ADEA inquiry. "A party may not defeat an agency's authority to investigate by raising what could be a defense if the agency subsequently decides to bring an action against the party." EEOC v. Delaware State Police, 618 F.Supp. 451, 1985 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15275, 39 FEP Cases (BNA) 81 (D. Del.). {N/R}
     Accused employee not entitled to discover disciplinary files of other employees to prove claim of discriminatory punishment; exceptions noted. Phrainen v. City of Lake Charles, 450 So.2d 986 (La. App. 1984).
     News publisher has right to inspect files relating to termination of chief; intervention allowed. State v. Township of Delevan, 334 N.W.2d 252 (Wis. 1983).
     Publicity attendant with officer's removal from training academy required due process hearing. Knutsen v. Bolas, 452 N.Y.S.2d 134 (Misc. 1982).
     California appellate court orders in camera production of personnel file of special deputy applicant. Johnson v. Winter, 179 Cal.Rptr. 585 (App. 1982).
     Accused employee's voluntary testimony at civil service hearing can be used against him in criminal trial; accused not entitled to see department's internal investigation file. Cox v. McNeal, 577 S.W.2d 881 (Mo.App. 1979).
     In a suit by the union, the employer could lawfully refuse to disclose the scores on employee aptitude tests, unless each employee signed a release. Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 99 S.Ct. 1123, 1979 U.S. Lexis 66 (1979). {N/R}
     A police officer's answers at a disciplinary interview are not exempt from discovery under the attorney-client privilege simply because the city and officer might be a party to a lawsuit arising from the underlying incident. Statements made to IAD investigators were not intended to be confidential within the attorney-client privilege, but rather were made as part of the process to determine whether LAPD policies were adhered to, as part of a disciplinary investigation. Gonzales v. Munic. Ct. (People), #48837, 67 Cal.App.3d 111, 136 Cal.Rptr. 475, 1977 Cal. App. Lexis 1209 (2d App. Dist. 1977). [N/R]
     Appellate court rules that results of a psychological test required by the Civil Service Cmsn. are not confidential. The purpose of the exam was not for diagnosis or treatment. The patient/health care provider privilege does not apply to the testing process. Ring v. Fox, 56 Ohio App.2d 235, 382 N.E.2d 1159 (1977).
     Also see: Disciplinary Discovery; Examination Techniques; Promotional Procedures; Psychological Exams & Standards.