DE 20-IB03 2020-01-14

Can I FOIA Delaware's Office of Animal Welfare for the name and address of someone who filed an animal-control complaint about my property?

Short answer: No. The Delaware AG ruled the Division of Public Health properly denied Laura Allen's request for animal-control complaint records targeting her address. The Office of Animal Welfare's complaints, complainant names and addresses, and documentary and video evidence are investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement and exempt under § 10002(l)(3).

Disclaimer: This is an official Delaware Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Delaware attorney for advice on your specific situation.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page, or PDF in the sidebar) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

View original AG opinion (PDF)

Official title

20-IB03 1/14/2020 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Laura Allen re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Division of Public Health

Plain-English summary

Laura Allen filed a FOIA request with the Division of Public Health for "all animal control complaints evidence including complaintee name and address, documentation and video recorded evidence" for a specified address. DPH denied the request under 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3), explaining that its Office of Animal Welfare investigates complaints under 16 Del. C. ch. 30F (subchapters III, IV, and V), and the complaints are confidential to protect informants and complainants.

Allen petitioned, asking the AG to review the denial in the interest of public safety. DPH responded with three reinforcing points: it enforces criminal laws and civil violations through animal welfare; the addresses of complainants and the documentary and video evidence are part of the investigatory files; releasing the complaints "would result in a public reluctance to contact the Division to report animal cruelty and animal control issues."

The AG sustained the denial. The investigatory-files exemption under § 10002(l)(3) covers complaints, complainant identifying information, and evidentiary records compiled in the investigation. Under News-Journal v. Billingsley (1980), the exemption "attaches as early as the first correspondence that led to the investigation" and continues to apply even after the investigation concludes. AG Opinion 17-IB47 had previously held that complainant identifying information about a DelDOT report was exempt. AG Opinion 17-IB23 held that medical records of seized dogs were exempt as investigatory files.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Can I find out who complained about my property?

Not through FOIA. The complainant's identity is protected as part of the investigatory file. The state has a strong interest in encouraging people to report animal cruelty without fear of retaliation, and the AG treats that as a structural reason to keep complainant identities confidential.

Even after the investigation is closed?

Yes. Under News-Journal v. Billingsley, the exemption survives the close of the investigation. The AG's office cites this consistently across animal welfare, fire investigations, and other civil-enforcement contexts.

What about the video or documentary evidence?

Also exempt. The opinion lists complaints, complainant identity, and evidentiary records as all part of the protected investigatory file. Photographs, videos, and physical evidence collected for an investigation are covered.

Does DPH or its Office of Animal Welfare really do "law enforcement"?

Yes. Animal welfare in Delaware is enforced under 16 Del. C. ch. 30F, with both criminal and civil components. Subchapters III, IV, and V give the Office investigation and enforcement authority. That makes its records investigatory files within FOIA's exemption.

What if I want to challenge a wrongful complaint?

The opinion does not provide a roadmap, but practical options include: contacting the Office of Animal Welfare directly to ask about the status of any investigation involving your property, retaining counsel to negotiate access through other channels, or pursuing civil litigation if the complaint becomes the basis for adverse action against you, with discovery available within that case.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware's animal welfare regime is housed in the Office of Animal Welfare within the Division of Public Health. The Office investigates allegations of animal cruelty, neglect, and animal-control violations under 16 Del. C. ch. 30F. Its enforcement authority spans civil penalties and criminal referrals.

29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3) is the standard FOIA exemption for "investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law-enforcement purposes." The Delaware Court of Chancery's 1980 News-Journal decision is the foundational authority on early attachment and post-conclusion survival. The AG's office has applied it across DelDOT, animal welfare, fire investigations, and other agency contexts.

The complainant-protection rationale traces a separate but consistent line: AG Opinion 17-IB47 treated DelDOT informant identity as exempt; this opinion applies the same logic to animal-welfare complainants. The structural concern is straightforward: if reporting an issue exposes the reporter to public identification, fewer people will report, and enforcement effectiveness drops.

Citations

29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 (Delaware FOIA)
29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3)
29 Del. C. § 10005(c), § 10005(e)
16 Del. C. ch. 30F (animal welfare laws)
News-Journal Co. v. Billingsley, 1980 WL 3043 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 1980)
Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB47, 2017 WL 4652343 (Sept. 22, 2017)
Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB23, 2017 WL 3426263 (July 14, 2017)

Source

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

NEW CASTLE COUNTY
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
FAX: (302) 577-6630
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
FAX: (302) 577-2496
FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
FAX: (302) 577-6499

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 20-IB03
January 14, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Ms. Laura Allen
[email protected]
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Division of Public Health of the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services

Dear Ms. Allen:

We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Division of Public Health in the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services ("DPH") violated the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 ("FOIA") with regard to your records request. We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005(e) regarding whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. For the reasons set forth below, it is our determination that DPH has not violated FOIA as alleged.

BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2019, DPH received your FOIA request seeking the following records: "all animal control complaints evidence including complaintee name and address, documentation and video recorded evidence for the above referenced address." DPH denied the request, citing 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3), which exempts investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement. DPH stated its Office of Animal Welfare "has the authority to investigate complaints against individuals pursuant to 16 Del. C. Chapter 30F, subchapters III, IV, and V." DPH further noted that the complaints are confidential due to the compelling interests in protecting informants and complainants. This Petition followed, asking our Office to review this request in the interest of public safety.

DPH's counsel responded to the Petition on December 17, 2019 ("Response"). DPH contends that its response to your FOIA request was appropriate, as the requested documents are not public records under 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3). DPH alleges that its Office of Animal Welfare "enforces criminal laws and civil violations," and that the complaints are exempt as investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes, noting the "addresses of the complainants, as well as documentary and video evidence, are components of those investigatory files." DPH states that the "personally identifiable information of complainants are recorded in response to civil and criminal complaints which the Division investigates" and that releasing these complaints "would result in a public reluctance to contact the Division to report animal cruelty and animal control issues." Finally, DPH asserts that the evidence it collects for these investigations is also exempt from disclosure, given that this evidence is associated with, and may be used in, ongoing civil and criminal matters.

DISCUSSION

A public body has the burden to justify its denial of a request for records. DPH's Office of Animal Welfare is obligated to enforce certain animal welfare laws and has denied your request pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3). Under this exemption, investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement, including complaints and the evidentiary records compiled in the investigation, are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The exemption attaches "as early as the first correspondence that led to the investigation" and survives the conclusion of any resulting investigation. DPH's counsel represents that the complaint, the complainant's name and address, and evidentiary records you seek are part of its investigatory files that its Office of Animal Welfare compiled for its law enforcement purposes. As such, DPH properly denied your request pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(3).

CONCLUSION

Based on above, it is our determination that DPH has not violated FOIA as alleged.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Alexander S. Mackler
Alexander S. Mackler
Chief Deputy Attorney General

cc:

Joanna S. Suder, Deputy Attorney General
Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General