Can a Delaware journalist get a list of every certified police officer's name, salary, and race?

Official title

24-IB01 01/11/2024 FOIA Opinion Letter to Robert E. Vanella re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Division of Delaware State Police of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security

Plain-English summary

Delaware Call coordinating editor Robert Vanella sent a seven-part FOIA request to the Division of Delaware State Police for: (1) names of all currently certified law enforcement officers, (2) each officer's salary, (3) employing agency and rank, (4) past employers and titles, (5) resumes, (6) a list of formerly certified officers and their status (lapsed, suspended), and (7) age, sex, and race of each. DSP denied most items, citing the security exemption, the personnel-file exemption, and other-statute exemptions. It pointed Vanella to the Open The Books salary website for item 2, said it does not maintain rosters of all officers (only DSP troopers), and claimed disclosure of names would compromise officer safety, particularly for officers on undercover or intelligence assignments.

The AG sided with DSP. As a threshold matter, DSP only maintains records for its own troopers, not for every certified officer in Delaware; that takes care of items asking for "all law enforcement officers" beyond DSP's own records. On the names of DSP troopers themselves, the AG accepted DSP's affidavits from the Chief Public Information Officer and the Director of Human Resources attesting to the safety risk: increased threatening calls and social media messages, an in-person threatening incident at DSP headquarters, and the existence of officers in undercover or intelligence roles whose identities cannot be safely separated from a published roster. That brought the roster within § 10002(o)(17)(a)(5)(A), which protects "[s]pecific and unique vulnerability assessments or specific and unique response or deployment plans, including compiled underlying data" essential to those plans. With the names off the table, the remaining items (rank, employer, past jobs, resumes, demographics) all required tying data to officer identities, so they fell with the names.

The AG noted DSP's voluntary offers in its response: directing Vanella to Open The Books for salaries, citing DSP's annual reports for workforce data, pointing to the Criminal Justice Council's Statewide Police Integrity Report for decertified-officer lists, flagging upcoming statutory transparency improvements at POST and the CJC under 11 Del. C. § 8404A(5) and §§ 9210(a)(3), 9211, and offering to provide aggregate demographic statistics without trooper names.

What this means for you

If you are a journalist or researcher seeking police data

Aggregate, anonymized data is the practical workaround in Delaware. DSP itself offered demographic and workforce stats without names. The CJC's annual Statewide Police Integrity Report is a public document with decertified-officer lists by department. POST is required to publish summaries of certification decisions under 11 Del. C. § 8404A(5). For salaries, OpenTheBooks aggregates state employee compensation data. None of these will give you a complete trooper roster, but together they let you build most of what an integrity-focused investigation needs.

If you are a defense attorney or civil rights litigator

A targeted FOIA request for records about a specific officer involved in a specific incident is much harder for DSP to refuse than a blanket roster. The security exemption rationale here turned on the bulk nature of the request and the inclusion of undercover personnel in the dataset. Individual public-facing officers, especially those who have been the subject of administrative findings, do not get the same shield.

If you advise a Delaware law enforcement agency

The AG accepted DSP's two-affidavit submission as sufficient. The structure to copy: a public information officer attesting to specific recent threats and the operational reality that disclosure poses a safety risk, plus a human resources or personnel official confirming undercover assignments are part of the roster. Vague "could harm someone" language without specifics will not survive Judicial Watch.

If you are a citizen who wants to know who polices you

Stick to what is public: agencies' websites, the CJC's annual report, POST summaries (once posted), and local news coverage. Body camera and arrest reports for specific encounters are the more granular route, though those have their own exemption fights.

Common questions

Why isn't a list of public officers' names a public record?

Because Delaware's security exemption is broader than a simple "law enforcement names are private" rule. The AG read § 10002(o)(17)(a)(5)(A) to cover "compiled underlying data" essential to vulnerability assessments and response/deployment plans. DSP's argument was that knowing who all the troopers are reveals which ones are not in the trooper roster (i.e., undercover), which itself compromises operations. The AG accepted that.

What about salaries?

DSP told Vanella it does not maintain salaries for all certified officers, only its own. The AG did not need to decide whether DSP-trooper salaries on their own are exempt, because Vanella did not specifically complain about the salary item; DSP had directed him to Open The Books. As a practical matter, Delaware state employee salaries are publicly searchable through that aggregator.

What's POST and how does it publish certification decisions?

The Police Officer Standards and Training Commission. Under 11 Del. C. § 8404A(5), POST is required to publish summaries of certification decisions on its website. Combined with the CJC's website obligations under §§ 9210(a)(3) and 9211 (detailed narratives of certain disciplinary decisions and aggregate disciplinary stats), Delaware's transparency framework is moving toward more named-officer accountability for misconduct, even as bulk roster requests stay shielded.

Can the press challenge this in court?

In theory yes, under 29 Del. C. § 10005(d), but the AG's reasoning here will be hard to overcome. The Court of Chancery and Superior Court give weight to AG opinions. A targeted lawsuit on a narrower set of records (officers with sustained discipline findings, officers involved in named incidents) has much better odds than a broad roster challenge.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10002(o) lists FOIA exclusions. Subsection (o)(1) covers personnel files. Subsection (o)(6) covers records exempted by other statute or common law. Subsection (o)(17) covers security records. Within (o)(17), subsection (a)(5) covers "portions of records assembled, prepared or maintained to prevent, mitigate or respond to criminal acts," with subcategory (A) covering "[s]pecific and unique vulnerability assessments or specific and unique response or deployment plans, including compiled underlying data collected in preparation of or essential to the assessments or to the response or deployment plans." That is the hook DSP invoked.

11 Del. C. ch. 92 governs criminal history record information generally, the basis DSP cited for refusing the formerly-certified-officers list. 11 Del. C. § 8404A(5) requires POST to publish certification decision summaries. 11 Del. C. § 9210(a)(3) and § 9211 require the CJC website to publish detailed narratives of certain disciplinary decisions and aggregate disciplinary statistics.

The public body bears the burden under 29 Del. C. § 10005(c). Following Judicial Watch v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021), DSP submitted two sworn affidavits: from the Chief Public Information Officer (attesting to threat activity and undercover assignments) and from the Director of Human Resources (confirming the bulk-roster safety problem and the limits of DSP's records). The AG treated those affidavits as sufficient evidence.

Citations

• 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (Delaware FOIA)
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) (personnel file exemption)
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(6) (records exempt by other statute)
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17) (security exemption)
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17)(a)(5)(A) (vulnerability and deployment plans)
• 29 Del. C. § 10005(c) (burden of proof)
• 11 Del. C. ch. 92 (criminal history record information)
• 11 Del. C. § 8404A(5) (POST website transparency)
• 11 Del. C. § 9210(a)(3) (CJC website narratives)
• 11 Del. C. § 9211 (CJC disciplinary statistics)
• Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2024/01/11/24-ib01-01-11-2024-foia-opinion-letter-to-robert-e-vanella-re-foia-complaint-concerning-the-division-of-delaware-state-police-of-the-department-of-safety-and-homeland-security/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2024/01/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-24-IB01.pdf

Original opinion text

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
DIVISION CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST (302) 577-5400
FAMILY DIVISION (302) 577-8400
FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
FAX (302) 577-2610

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 24-IB01
January 11, 2024
VIA EMAIL
Robert E. Vanella, Coordinating Editor
Delaware Call
[email protected]

RE:

FOIA Petition Regarding the Division of Delaware State Police of the
Department of Safety and Homeland Security

Dear Mr. Vanella:

We write regarding your correspondence alleging that the Division of Delaware State Police of the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("DSP") violated the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). 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. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2023, you submitted a request to the Delaware State Police seeking the following records:

1. Names of all law enforcement officers who are actively certified as of the date of this request (or when the request is processed) ("certified officers"). This document may take the form of a roster of certified officers.
2. The current annual salary of each certified officer.
3. The current employing state agency of each certified officer. The current rank of each certified officer.
4. The past employers of each certified officer and job title(s) associated with each such employment.
5. Resumes of each certified officer.
6. A list of all formerly certified officers and their current status (lapsed, suspended, etc.)
7. The age, sex, and race of each certified officer.[1]

On November 3, 2023, the DSP responded. For the first item, the DSP stated it does not have a list of all certified officers in Delaware, merely information about State troopers, and it had no existing list of DSP troopers nor could it readily generate one. Even if the trooper list was available, the DSP stated that it would be exempt under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17). Regarding the second item, the DSP asserted it does not have the salaries of all certified officers in the State but referred you to a website known as "Open The Books," a website listing state employees and their salaries. For the third item asking for the current employing agency and rank, the DSP referred to its response to the first request. Regarding the fourth item seeking past employers and job titles, the DSP referred to its response for the first request and asserted it does not have a database or document with this information for its current employees. For the fifth item, the DSP stated it does not maintain the resumes for all troopers and to the extent it may have resumes, they would be exempt under Section 10002(o)(1). For the sixth item seeking the list of all formerly certified officers and their current status, the DSP referred to its response to the fifth request and also noted that this list would be exempt by Delaware Code, 11 Del. C. ch. 92. By way of response to the seventh item for the age, sex, and race of each certified officer, the DSP referred to its responses to the fifth and sixth requests. This Petition followed.

In the Petition, you allege that other than the salary information sought in the second item, every item in your request was denied, and the DSP's denials are overly broad applications of the FOIA statute, which are contrary to the principle that FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed. You question the propriety of denying access to the first, third and fourth items under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17), as this exemption would not be appropriate to protect privacy of the officers. In addition, you argue that the assertion of the personnel file exemption under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) is not appropriate, as resumes are public records under the Delaware court precedent and the seventh item for the age, sex, and race of the officers seeks indirect identifiers, which are not private information. In response to the DSP's denying the existence of records in the requested format, or having any records at all for a request, you point out that the FOIA statute requires the DSP to make every effort to assist the requesting party in identifying the records and in light of modern capabilities, you believe the DSP should fulfill the requests.

The DSP, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition, maintaining that its response to the request was appropriate, as it does not maintain some of these records and that it properly cited the exemptions under Sections 10002(o)(1), (6), and (17). In its Response, the DSP provides information regarding other potentially relevant documents that are or will be available. The DSP argues that releasing a full list of DSP officers and biographical information would pose a unique security risk, as some officers serve currently, or will in the future, on undercover or intelligence assignments. The DSP provided two affidavits with its Response, one from the Chief Public Information Officer and the second from the Director of Human Resources. The Chief Public Information Officer expressly attests that disclosure of the names and biographical information would pose a safety risk, noting an increase in concerning messages from the public through phone calls and social media and the occurrence of an in-person threatening incident at DSP headquarters. In addition, the Chief Public Information Officer attests that "[m]any DSP troopers serve in undercover and other intelligence roles," and disclosing the identities and the associated information about its troopers would "create a significant officer-safety issue."[2] The Director of Human Resources asserts under oath that "[d]isclosure of the names of all officers would necessarily include officers who are or will act in an undercover capacity" and "[r]eleasing names of all officers . . . could subject them to potential harassment or danger in the conduct of their official duties and personal affairs."[3]

DISCUSSION

The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records.[4] In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.[5] The Petition alleges that the DSP improperly denied six of the seven items in the request, excluding the second item regarding salaries. As a threshold matter, the DSP provided sworn evidence that it does not maintain records of all Delaware law enforcement officers, only records of the DSP troopers, so any requests seeking records of all law enforcement officers, other than DSP troopers, was properly denied.[6]

The first item requested the "[n]ames of all law enforcement officers who are actively certified as of the date of this request (or when the request is processed) ('certified officers')."[7] Section 10002(o)(17) applies to seven categories of records that "if copied or inspected, could jeopardize the security of any structure owned by the State or any of its political subdivisions, or could facilitate the planning of a terrorist attack, or could endanger the life or physical safety of an individual."[8] One such category consists of "portions of records assembled, prepared or maintained to prevent, mitigate or respond to criminal acts, the public disclosure of which would have a substantial likelihood of threatening public safety," which are exempt if they fall under one of two subcategories.[9] A subcategory is the "[s]pecific and unique vulnerability assessments or specific and unique response or deployment plans, including compiled underlying data collected in preparation of or essential to the assessments or to the response or deployment plans."[10] The DSP's primary objectives include assessing vulnerable areas and deploying response plans to prevent, mitigate, or respond to criminal activity, and the identities of the officers, including those officers that are undercover or working in intelligence operations, are essential to these response and deployment plans. Disclosure of these assessments and response and deployment plans pose a safety risk to the involved officers and the public safety of the communities in which the officers operate, especially officers working in undercover or intelligence operations. As such, we determine that the requested list of all DSP troopers is exempt from FOIA under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17)(a)(5)(A). As the remaining items in the request that are the subject of this Petition hinge on releasing the identities of the DSP troopers, we determine that the DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to these remaining records.

In its Response, the DSP supplements its initial response to your request by offering more records, including records outside of its custody, that pertain to the subject matter of the requests but do not pose safety risks. In addition to the previously provided citation to the website, "Open The Books," the DSP provides the link to the DSP's website with its published annual reports that contain information about its workforce. In addition, the DSP provides a citation to the Criminal Justice Council's "Statewide Police Integrity Report" dated November 1, 2021, which contains a list of decertified officers by department or agency for the prior decade. Finally, the DSP states "that while information about officer decertification in Delaware had historically been non-public, recent statutory amendments will soon make particular certification decisions and records publicly available on the websites of the CJC and the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission (the "POST"). See 11 Del. C. § 8404A(5) (requiring that POST include summaries of certification decisions on its website); and 11 Del. C. §§ 9210(a)(3) and 9211 (requiring the posting on CJC website detailed narratives of certain disciplinary decisions and other disciplinary statistical data)."[11] Furthermore, via the DSP counsel's November 13, 2023 email, the DSP offered to provide you with additional demographic or other statistical information without trooper names.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Alexander S. Mackler

Alexander S. Mackler
Chief Deputy Attorney General

cc:

Joseph C. Handlon, Deputy Attorney General
Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General

[1] Petition.
[2] Response, Aff. of Chief Public Information Officer dated Nov. 14, 2023.
[3] Id., Aff. of Director of Human Resources dated Nov. 14, 2023.
[4] 29 Del. C. § 10005(c).
[5] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).
[6] Response, Aff. of Director of Human Resources dated Nov. 14, 2023.
[7] Petition.
[8] 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Response, p. 3.