Can Delaware State Police withhold records explaining why a license plate reader camera was put in my neighborhood?

Plain-English summary

A Delaware resident requested documents supporting the State Police's decision to place a Flock Safety license plate reader in a particular neighborhood. State Police denied access, citing FOIA exemptions for investigatory and intelligence files. The requester challenged the denial, questioning whether the camera was connected to a criminal investigation and arguing that the public had a strong interest in learning why it was installed.

The Delaware Attorney General found no FOIA violation. The police submitted a sworn statement from their FOIA coordinator that relayed confirmation from the license plate reader administrator: this camera was placed in connection with a criminal investigation and to gather intelligence. The opinion treats the requested records supporting that placement as investigatory files exempt under Section 10002(o)(3). The decision rests on the stated connection between this camera and an investigation. It does not announce that records for every police camera are exempt.

The opinion says a public body bears the burden of justifying a records denial and that an affidavit may be needed to carry it. It also states that the investigatory files exemption can attach when an agency first becomes aware of a potential issue and can survive the end of an investigation. The AG resolved this petition under the investigatory files exemption; it did not separately analyze the intelligence files ground or the requester's description of a “security exemption.”

What this means for you

People requesting records about police cameras

The ruling concerns records supporting the placement of one identified license plate reader. The AG accepted sworn evidence tying that placement to a criminal investigation and found those records exempt as investigatory files. The opinion does not determine the status of records about other cameras or a different kind of request.

Police records officers

The opinion applies FOIA's investigatory files exemption after the police provided a sworn account of the camera's investigative purpose. It also states the public body's burden to justify withholding. The petition was resolved on that ground, without a separate ruling on the intelligence files exemption.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG order police to explain why the camera was installed? A: No. It found no FOIA violation in denying the request for records supporting this camera's placement, based on sworn statements connecting it to a criminal investigation.

Q: Does an investigation have to be open for its file to be exempt? A: No. The opinion says the investigatory files exemption is not limited to pending investigations and can continue after one closes.

Q: Are all license plate reader placement records secret under Delaware FOIA? A: This opinion does not decide that. It addressed a specific request and an affidavit about one camera's connection to a criminal investigation.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware FOIA gives citizens reasonable access to public records, while placing the burden on the public body to justify a denial. Section 10002(o)(3) exempts investigatory files compiled for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes. The opinion cites prior authority for the exemption's timing and for the possibility that a sworn affidavit is needed to establish an exemption.

The petitioner asked for any document, report, memo, or other record supporting a camera's placement. State Police invoked both the investigatory files and intelligence files exemptions. The AG's discussion relies on the former, because the sworn response connected the placement to an investigation. The petitioner's doubts about that connection did not change the determination in this record.

Citations and references

• 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (Delaware FOIA)
• Section 10002(o)(3) (investigatory files exemption)
• 29 Del. C. §§ 10003(a), 10005(c) (access and burden of proof)
• Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021)
• News-Journal Co. v. Billingsley, 1980 WL 3043, at *2-3 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 1980)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2026/10/05/26-ib58-10-05-26-foia-opinion-letter-to-ryan-connell-re-delaware-state-poilice/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2026/10/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-26-IB58.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-IB58
October 5, 2026

Via Email
Ryan Connell
[email protected]

Re:

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

Dear Ryan Connell:
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 19, 2026, you submitted a FOIA request to the DSP seeking any document, report, memo or other record that supports the placement of a Flock Safety camera in a specified neighborhood. 1 On September 3, 2026, the DSP denied this request pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3), which exempts investigatory file records for criminal law enforcement purposes and 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(5), which exempts intelligence files compiled for a law enforcement purpose. This Petition followed. In the Petition, you contend that the DSP improperly denied your request under FOIA. You allege that it is “odd that the police don’t have any generally public documents that would support

1

Petition.
1

placing a spy camera in a residential neighborhood.” 2 You also assert it is doubtful that the camera was ordered as a part of a particular criminal investigation; you note that it is a low crime neighborhood and you believe cameras require DelDOT permitting. You contend that the security exemption should be inapplicable because, in your opinion, the security exemption exists so that individuals cannot hack sensitive computer systems or receive plans for prisons or other secure facilities. You assert that the interest in knowing why this police agency is installing cameras in low crime middle class neighborhoods is a compelling public interest. On September 18, 2026, the DSP, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition (“Response”). The DSP argues that the information you requested falls within the investigatory and intelligence files exemptions. The DSP asserts that this particular camera was, in fact, placed in this location as part of a criminal investigation and to gather intelligence. The DSP attached the affidavit of its Community Relations Officer, who serves as the FOIA coordinator to support this assertion. The Community Relations Officer states, under oath, that the Officer contacted the Automatic License Plate Reader Administrator for DSP who provided confirmation that the camera was placed at this location in connection with a criminal investigation and to gather intelligence. Finally, the DSP points out that your beliefs, suppositions, and speculation in the Petition are not legal argument; the submission fails to show that the DSP violated FOIA.

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 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 2

Id.

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 1012.

7

Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 17-IB05, 2017 WL 1317847, at *3 (March 10, 2017). 2

This exemption is not limited to pending investigations and continues to apply after an investigation is closed. 8 Here, the DSP provided sworn statements that the camera that is the subject of your request was placed in this neighborhood as part of a criminal investigation. 9 Thus, the requested records that support the placement of this license plate reader camera are considered part of law enforcement investigatory files and are 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 records.

Very truly yours,

_________
Daniel Logan
Chief Deputy Attorney General

cc:

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

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

Response.
3