Can a Delaware county say my FOIA request for an arrest warrant is denied because 'we are not bound by FOIA' and demand a subpoena instead?

Official title

20-IB30 12/7/2020 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Amy McFalls re: FOIA Complaint Concerning New Castle County

Plain-English summary

Amy McFalls asked New Castle County for a copy of an arrest warrant served by a County officer. The County denied the request with two stated reasons: that "our Office is not bound by the FOIA" and that any reports requested by defendants required a subpoena. The opinion states that the County is a public body subject to FOIA. It does not decide the subpoena or defendant-status rationale; it resolves the request because the County submitted a sworn statement that it did not possess or control the warrant.

But the County's response brief flipped the basis: a sworn affidavit from the Division of Police FOIA Coordinator stated that the County does not possess or have custody or control over executed arrest warrants, which are maintained by Delaware courts. The AG accepted that sworn representation under standing AG practice and found no FOIA violation. The opinion still flagged that the new reason had been raised for the first time in the response to the petition, and cautioned the County to give careful consideration to the reasons it states up front in denial letters.

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.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10003(h)(2) requires a public body that denies access to give a reason in its response. The body need not cite a specific FOIA exemption, but the reason given must be one FOIA actually authorizes (per AG Opinion 15-IB14, 2015). The opinion states that the County is a public body under 29 Del. C. § 10002(h). It does not analyze the County's statement about subpoenas or decide whether a requester's status as a defendant affects FOIA access.

What saved the County was the affidavit. The AG's standing practice (e.g., 17-IB03, 19-IB60) is to accept sworn FOIA-Coordinator statements that no responsive records exist absent contrary evidence. Executed arrest warrants are returned to and maintained by the Delaware courts that issued them, not by the police agency that served them. So once the affidavit established no record was in County custody, the petition lost its substance even though the County's original written denial was based on incorrect grounds.

The opinion's footnote citing 19-IB44 and 17-IB05 reflects a pattern: the AG repeatedly cautions agencies that "raising the right reason in the petition response" does not cure the failure to give a correct reason in the original denial letter. That is, an agency may avoid a violation finding when the right answer surfaces in litigation, but the AG flags the practice and the public record reflects it.

Common questions

Q: If the County does not have arrest warrants, who does? A: According to the FOIA Coordinator's affidavit described in the opinion, executed arrest warrants are maintained by the Delaware courts, not by the police agency that served them.

Q: What reason supported the denial under this opinion? A: The County submitted a sworn statement that it did not possess or have custody or control over executed arrest warrants and that Delaware courts maintained them. The AG accepted that representation and found no violation. The opinion also cautioned the County because it first asserted that reason in its petition response.

Q: What did the AG say about the County's stated reasons? A: The AG noted that the County first asserted the no-records reason in its petition response and cautioned it to give careful consideration to the reasons stated in future denials. It found no violation.

Citations

• 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 (Delaware FOIA)
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(h) (definition of public body)
• 29 Del. C. § 10003(h)(2) (reasons must be stated in denial)
• 29 Del. C. § 10005 (FOIA petition process)
• Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 15-IB14, 2015 WL 9701645 (Dec. 29, 2015)
• Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB03, 2017 WL 955568 (Feb. 15, 2017)
• Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 19-IB60, 2019 WL 6047163 (Oct. 28, 2019)
• Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 19-IB44, 2019 WL 4538330 (Aug. 12, 2019)
• Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB05, 2017 WL 1317847 (Mar. 10, 2017)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2020/12/07/20-ib30-12-7-2020-foia-opinion-letter-to-ms-amy-mcfalls-re-foia-complaint-concerning-new-castle-county/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2020/12/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-20-IB30.pdf

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-IB30
December 7, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Amy McFalls
[email protected]
RE:

FOIA Petition Regarding New Castle County

Dear Ms. McFalls:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Division of Police of New Castle County ("County") violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 1000110007 ("FOIA") in connection with your request for records. We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 regarding whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As set forth below, we determine that the County has not violated FOIA as alleged. BACKGROUND You submitted a records request to the County on September 24, 2020 for a copy of an arrest warrant served by a County police officer. The County denied the request, stating "our Office is not bound by the FOIA," and "also any reports requests by defendants need to have a subpoena for such records."1 This Petition followed, alleging that these reasons for denial were improper. The County's counsel responded on its behalf on November 16, 2020 ("Response"). Noting that the request was misdirected to the Department of Public Safety instead of the FOIA Coordinator for the Division of Police, the County submitted an affidavit of the Division of Police FOIA Coordinator, asserting that the request would have been denied by the Division of Police

1

Petition.

because the County does not possess or have custody or control over executed arrest warrants. Instead, the FOIA Coordinator states the arrest warrants are maintained by Delaware courts. DISCUSSION The County is a public body subject to FOIA,2 and as a public body, the County must provide a reason when it denies access to public records.3 A public body is not required to cite to a specific exemption, but the denial of access to the records must be authorized by FOIA.4 In this case, the County provided an affidavit with its Response that this request was appropriately denied because no responsive records exist. Consistent with this Office's practice, we accept this sworn representation.5 However, we note that the County asserted this reason for the first time in its Response to your Petition and caution the County to give careful consideration to the reasons asserted in its denials in the future.6 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we determine that the County has not violated FOIA, as the County denied access to the record for a reason authorized by FOIA.

2

29 Del. C. § 10002(h).

3

29 Del. C. § 10003(h)(2) ("If the public body denies a request in whole or in part, the public body's response shall indicate the reasons for the denial."). 4

Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 15-IB14, 2015 WL 9701645, at *3 (Dec. 29, 2015).

5

Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 19-IB60, 2019 WL 6047163, at 2 (Oct. 28, 2019) ("In accordance with this Office's practice, we accept these representations, including the FOIA Coordinator's sworn statement made under penalty of perjury, and find no FOIA violation with respect to DNREC's cost estimate."); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB03, 2017 WL 955568, at 4 (Feb. 15, 2017) (concluding that the public body adequately supported its contention with a sworn affidavit).

6

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 19-IB44, 2019 WL 4538330, n. 19 (Aug. 12, 2019) ("We note that DSP asserted the investigatory exemption for police report information for the first time in its Response to your Petition, and we respectfully caution DSP to give due consideration to reasons asserted in any future denials."); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB05, 2017 WL 1317847, n. 37 (Mar. 10, 2017) ("While, in this instance, we have determined that DNREC's denial of your request was indeed authorized by FOIA, we nevertheless caution DNREC to give careful consideration to the reason(s) provided, pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10003(h)(2), for any FOIA denial."). 2

Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole
_____
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved by:
/s/ Aaron R. Goldstein
_________
Aaron R. Goldstein
State Solicitor
cc:

Jordan J. Perry, Assistant County Attorney

3