Could New Castle County withhold SWAT reports, body-camera video, and 911 calls from the resident whose home was entered?

Plain-English summary

The Delaware Attorney General concluded that New Castle County did not violate FOIA by withholding records from a SWAT operation at the requester's residence.

The request covered incident and SWAT reports, arrest reports, body-camera footage, 911 calls, property-damage reports, and entry or boarding documents. The AG held that, to the extent the County had responsive records, they were investigatory files exempt under 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3). The County also invoked the criminal-files and intelligence-files exemptions, but the AG did not rule on either of those grounds.

The requester argued that her connection to the property damage supported disclosure of redacted records. The opinion reports that argument but resolves the denial under the investigatory-files exemption without separately deciding her proposed redaction.

New Castle County also stated under oath that police did not board up the residence after the operation and therefore had no responsive boarding records.

What this means for you

Residents seeking records of a police operation

The requester said she lived at the residence and had suffered property damage. The AG did not separately analyze whether those facts changed her access rights. It concluded that responsive records from the law-enforcement encounter were exempt as investigatory files.

Police departments and SWAT teams

The County's police affidavit asserted both investigatory-files and intelligence-files grounds for some operational records. The AG upheld the denial under the investigatory-files exemption alone; this opinion supplies no ruling on the intelligence-files claim.

FOIA coordinators

Sworn affidavits established the character of the records and the absence of responsive boarding documents. The public body's burden required that factual support.

Common questions

Could the resident obtain redacted body-camera footage or SWAT reports?

The AG did not order redacted production. It treated responsive records from this law-enforcement encounter as exempt investigatory files without separately analyzing the requester's proposed redaction.

Were the 911 calls treated differently from the police reports?

No. An emergency-communications affidavit stated that the calls were part of the investigatory files compiled for law-enforcement purposes.

Did the AG decide the intelligence-files claim about SWAT planning records?

No. The County's affidavit asserted that the records contained sensitive tactical information. The AG did not reach that exemption because it found responsive records covered by the investigatory-files exemption.

What did the County say about boarding records?

Its police sergeant stated under oath that County police were not involved in boarding the residence and that the County had no responsive records. The opinion did not decide a duty to create a record.

Background and statutory framework

The requester sought records from a SWAT operation at her residence, including reports, recordings, property-damage material, and entry or boarding documents. The County invoked the investigatory, criminal-files, and intelligence-files exemptions. The AG's discussion and conclusion rely on the investigatory-files exemption.

The AG applied the investigatory-files rule based on the purpose for which the records were compiled. Affidavits from emergency communications and police personnel supported the County's denial.

Citations discussed

• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3), the investigatory-files exemption
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(4), criminal-files ground asserted by the County but not decided by the AG
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(5), intelligence-files ground asserted by the County but not decided by the AG
• Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021), cited on FOIA purpose and proof
• News-Journal Co. v. Billingsley, 1980 WL 3043, at *2-3 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 1980), cited on the investigatory-files exemption

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2026/05/06/26-ib21-5-6-26-foia-opinion-letter-to-breianna-loyd-re-new-castle-county/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2026/05/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-26-IB21.pdf

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

KATHLEEN JENNINGS

820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

Office of the Attorney General of the State of Delaware
Attorney General Opinion No. 26-IB21
May 6, 2026

Via Email
Breianna Aaliyah Loyd
[email protected]

RE:

FOIA Petition Regarding New Castle County

Dear Ms. Loyd:
We write in response to your correspondence, alleging that New Castle County violated Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (“FOIA”). We treat this 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. As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the County did not violate FOIA by withholding access to the requested records.

Background
In April 2026, you submitted a FOIA request to New Castle County, seeking records related to a law enforcement operation, including SWAT, conducted at your residence. 1 Specifically, you sought incident reports, SWAT operation reports, arrest reports, body camera footage, 911 call recordings, property damage reports, and documentation related to entry and boarding of the residence. On April 8, 2026, the County denied this request in its entirety, citing 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3) which pertains to investigatory file records, 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(4) which pertains to criminal files and records, and 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(5) which pertains to intelligence files. This Petition followed. In the Petition, you contend that you are the resident who is a victim of property damage resulting from this law enforcement operation, and as the requested records relate to property damage and government conduct, they are not entirely exempt from disclosure. Rather, you 1

Petition.
1

believe that portions of these records should be released in redacted form, and the County’s denial was overly broad. On April 16, 2026, the County, through its legal counsel, responded to your Petition. The County maintains that its denial of access to these records is appropriate under FOIA. The County argues that the relevant inquiry for determining the applicability of the investigatory and criminal files exemptions focuses on the purpose of the files’ creation. The County provided an affidavit from the Assistant Chief of the Emergency Communications Division, stating that this division received 911 calls from residents in the area related to the incident and those call records are part of the investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement. The County enclosed a second affidavit from the County Police Sargeant serving as the Department of Public Safety FOIA Coordinator, who attested that the incident reports, SWAT operation reports, body camera footage, property damage reports, and any entry and boarding documentation were part of an investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes. In addition, the affidavit noted that the arrest reports are part of the criminal files under Section 10002(o)(4), the disclosure of which would violate the privacy of that individual. The Sargeant also states under oath that it is not standard practice to board up a residence following a SWAT operation and confirmed with unidentified staff that the County police were not involved in the boarding of the residence; thus, the County has no responsive records. Additionally, the Sargeant attests that the SWAT operation reports and entry documents are exempt under Section 10002(o)(5) because the records “contain sensitive tactical information including methods of entry, deployment strategies, operational planning, and law enforcement capabilities, the release of which could compromise officer safety and the effectiveness of future operations.” 2

Discussion
Delaware’s FOIA law “was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware’s citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities.” 3 FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. 4 The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. 5 In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. 6

2

Response.

3

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).

4

29 Del. C. § 10003(a).

5

29 Del. C. § 10005(c).

6

Judicial Watch, Inc., 267 A.3d at 1008-1012.
2

Section 10002(o)(3) exempts “[i]nvestigatory files compiled for civil or criminal lawenforcement purposes including pending investigative files, pretrial and presentence investigations and child custody and adoption files where there is no criminal complaint at issue.” “[T]he investigatory exemption attaches as soon as an agency is first made aware of a potential issue.” 7 This exemption is not limited to pending investigations and continues to apply after an investigation is closed. 8 Here, this request seeks records related to a law enforcement encounter that occurred at your residence; such records, on their face, pertain to an investigation for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes. 9 Thus, to the extent that the County has responsive records, these records are considered part of law enforcement investigatory files and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3).

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the County did not violate FOIA by withholding access to the requested records.

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

7

Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 17-IB05, 2017 WL 1317847, at *3 (March 10, 2017).

8

News-Journal Co. v. Billingsley, 1980 WL 3043, at 2-3 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 1980) (determining that the investigatory files exemption attaches as soon as a public body is made aware of a potential issue and the exemption survives after the investigation is completed); see also Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 17-IB47, 2017 WL 4652343, at 1 (Sept. 22, 2017); Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 05-IB16, 2005 WL 2334345, at 2 (Jun. 22, 2005); Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 98-IB13, 1998 WL 910199, at 1 (Dec. 8, 1998).

9

Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 25-IB14, 2025 WL 818783, at 2 (Feb. 28, 2025) (“The DSP’s denial of these photographs and video footage under the investigatory files exemption is proper, as these records involve a law enforcement encounter precipitating a police investigation.”); Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 24-IB11, 2024 WL 1132324, at 2 (Feb. 23, 2024) (“This request seeks information regarding the date and type of calls for service to the DSP from a particular residence, which on its face, would initiate police investigation. Thus, the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3).”). 3

Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis
________
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor

cc:

Colleen K. Norris, Assistant County Attorney

4