DE 25-IB52 2025-10-20

Can a Delaware citizen use FOIA to get police call logs and CAD records for a specific address, with personal info redacted?

Short answer: No. The AG concluded the Delaware State Police did not violate FOIA by denying a request for calls-for-service logs and call summaries tied to a property. Such calls, on their face, would initiate police investigation for civil or criminal law-enforcement purposes, so the records are part of investigatory files and fully exempt under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3). Because the records are exempt as part of an investigatory file, producing them with personal identifiers redacted was not required.

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 AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent.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)

Plain-English summary

Renee Edge sent the Delaware State Police ("DSP") a FOIA request on August 24, 2025 seeking records tied to a specific property address from January 1, 2008 to the present. The request covered calls for service and CAD logs, incident or officer-response reports, records identifying people who contacted DSP about the address, and 911 call recordings or transcripts. She also asked for any records showing the property had been designated a nuisance property or had been the subject of nuisance-related proceedings.

DSP denied the request, citing four exemptions: investigatory files under § 10002(o)(3); criminal records under § 10002(o)(4); records excluded by statute or common law under § 10002(o)(6) (including the right of privacy and Title 11, Chapters 85 and 86); and security records under § 10002(o)(17).

Edge petitioned, arguing the blanket denial was overbroad. She acknowledged that personal identifiers or certain investigatory records might be exempt, but asked DSP to produce at least the CAD logs or call summaries (number, dates, and general nature of calls) with the personal identifying information of complainants, witnesses, or victims removed.

The AG sided with DSP. Section 10002(o)(3) exempts investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law-enforcement purposes. The opinion states that the investigatory exemption attaches as soon as an agency is first made aware of a potential issue, is not limited to pending investigations, and continues to apply after an investigation is closed. Calls for service to a particular property, on their face, would initiate police investigation for law-enforcement purposes, so the requested call records are part of investigatory files and fully exempt under § 10002(o)(3). The opinion concluded DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested logs and call summaries.

What this means for you

If you requested calls-for-service or CAD records for an address

The opinion treats those records as part of an investigatory file that is fully exempt under § 10002(o)(3). On the AG's reasoning, the exemption applies even to closed matters, because it attaches as soon as the agency is first made aware of a potential issue.

If you asked for a redacted version

The opinion did not require DSP to produce the logs or call summaries with personal identifiers removed. It treated the call records as exempt because they are part of an investigatory file, not merely because they contain personal information.

If you are a Delaware police records officer

The opinion supports denying a request for calls-for-service and CAD logs tied to an address under the investigatory files exemption, § 10002(o)(3). Note that the AG's conclusion rested on that exemption for the requested logs and call summaries; it did not separately resolve the other exemptions DSP raised.

Common questions

Why are calls-for-service records exempt even years later?

The opinion states that the investigatory exemption "attaches as soon as an agency is first made aware of a potential issue," is not limited to pending investigations, and continues to apply after an investigation is closed. The request reached back to 2008, but on the AG's reasoning the age of the records does not change their exempt status.

Does redaction get me a partial release?

Not here. The petitioner specifically asked for CAD logs or call summaries with complainant, witness, and victim identifiers removed. The AG concluded the call records are part of investigatory files and fully exempt, so DSP was not required to produce a redacted version.

Did the AG rule on the nuisance-property and 911 parts of the request?

The conclusion addressed the requested "logs and call summaries" under the investigatory files exemption. DSP had also cited the criminal-records exemption, the statutory-exclusion exemption (including Title 11, Chapters 85 and 86), and the security-records exemption, but the AG resolved the petition on the investigatory files ground.

Can civil discovery reach these records?

The opinion does not address civil discovery. It decided only that DSP did not violate FOIA. FOIA exemptions and the rules governing discovery in a pending court case are separate questions, and this opinion speaks only to the FOIA request.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3) exempts "[i]nvestigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law-enforcement purposes including pending investigative files, pretrial and presentence investigations and child custody and adoption files where there is no criminal complaint at issue."

The opinion describes this as an exemption that attaches as soon as the agency is first made aware of a potential issue and that survives the closure of an investigation. On that reading, records generated when DSP responds to calls about a particular address (the CAD entry, the call record, related reports) are part of the investigatory file.

DSP also invoked § 10002(o)(4) (criminal records), § 10002(o)(6) (records excluded by statute or common law, including Title 11, Chapters 85 and 86), and § 10002(o)(17) (security records). The AG's determination rested on the investigatory files exemption for the requested logs and call summaries and did not reach the others.

Citations

Statutes: 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (FOIA); § 10002(o)(3) (investigatory files); § 10002(o)(4) (criminal records); § 10002(o)(6) (statutory exclusions); § 10002(o)(17) (security records); § 10005 (petition process); 11 Del. C. Chapters 85 and 86.

Source

Original opinion text

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB52
October 20, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Renee Edge
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security

Dear Renee Edge:

We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("DSP") violated Delaware's 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 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2025, you submitted a FOIA request to the DSP for records "pertaining to calls for service, reports, or other records involving" a certain property address from January 1, 2008 to the present. The request includes calls for service reports and CAD logs, incident reports or officer response reports, records identifying individuals who contacted the DSP regarding this address, and 911 call recordings or transcripts of such calls. You also sought any records indicating that this property had been designated as a nuisance property or has been the subject of any nuisance-related proceedings or adjudications by the DSP.

The DSP denied this request, citing the exemptions for investigatory file records for criminal law enforcement purposes under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3); criminal records under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(4); records exempt from disclosure by statute or common law under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(6), to include the right of privacy and Title 11, Chapters 85 and 86 of the Delaware Code, and security records under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17). This Petition followed.

In the Petition, you contend that the DSP's denial of the entirety of the request was overbroad. You state that while you understand personal identifiers or certain investigatory records may be exempt, public bodies are required to release nonexempt portions of records whenever reasonably possible. You seek, at a minimum, that the DSP produce "CAD logs, or call summaries showing the number, dates, and general nature of calls for service to this property, with personal identifying information of complainants, witnesses, or victims removed."

On July 11, 2025, the DSP, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition ("Response"). The DSP argues that the investigatory files exemption applies, as the request is "related to law enforcement incidents initiated from phone calls (from which call sheets are generated), placed by individuals and involving the specified address." The DSP further contends that because this request involves reports related to criminal incidents, it triggers the criminal and confidential record exceptions pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(4) and § 10002(o)(6), including 11 Del. C. Chapters 85 and 86. Finally, the DSP argues that the security records exemption in 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(17) is applicable, as the request for records indicating the property has been flagged as a nuisance refers to information maintained in the 911 records to aid law enforcement in calls for service.

DISCUSSION

FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.

Section 10002(o)(3) exempts "[i]nvestigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law-enforcement purposes including pending investigative files, pretrial and presentence investigations and child custody and adoption files where there is no criminal complaint at issue." In this Petition, you allege that CAD logs or call summaries should be produced with redaction of the personal identifying information of complainants, witnesses, or victims. "[F]or purposes of FOIA, the investigatory exemption attaches as soon as an agency is first made aware of a potential issue." This exemption is not limited to pending investigations and continues to apply after an investigation is closed. This request seeks the call records with the number, date, and type of calls for service to the DSP from a particular property; such calls, on their face, would initiate police investigation for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes. Thus, the requested call records are part of investigatory files and fully exempt from disclosure pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested logs and call summaries.

Very truly yours,

Daniel Logan
Chief Deputy Attorney General

cc: Joseph C. Handlon, Deputy Attorney General; Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General