Delaware is under a State of Emergency. Here are answers to frequently asked questions about what this means for you. More Info
Petitioner alleged that the University of Delaware improperly denied their request for records and communications related to Vice President Biden’s senatorial papers or communications between anyone acting on behalf of the university and Vice President Biden, his presidential campaign, or other person acting on his behalf.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The University of Delaware is exempt from FOIA except for the meetings of its Board of Trustees and records related to the expenditure of public funds. The factual record did not indicate that the records requested were related to the expenditure of public funds.Read More
The Petitioner alleged that the City of Harrington 1) improperly delayed a response to a FOIA request for certain items; and 2) did not respond to the remaining items in a timely manner.
DECIDED: This Office was unable to make a finding regarding whether the response was improperly delayed. Because the City has since provided the Petitioner with a response to the remaining items in his FOIA request, the second allegation is moot.Read More
Petitioner alleged that DSP failed to timely respond to its request for records.
DECIDED: As DSP since provided a response, petitioner’s claim is now moot. DSP is cautioned to provide timely communications in the future.
PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion No. 20-IB16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Attorney General Opinion No. 20-IB16 April 8, 2020 VIA EMAIL Esteban Parra The News Journal EPARRA@wilmingt.gannett.com RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Delaware State Police Dear Mr. Parra: We write in response to your correspondence […]Read More
Petitioner alleged that New Castle County failed to timely respond to her FOIA request.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation, as New Castle County attempted to respond to the request by producing the requested records but made an inadvertent mistake in the petitioner’s email address. When notified, New Castle County rectified this inadvertent error and provided petitioner with the requested documents.Read More
Petitioner alleges that as a Delaware statute requires a certain firearms report be provided to the General Assembly, the State Bureau of Identification of the Delaware State Police (“DSP”) improperly denied his request for this report.
DECIDED: As DSP’s counsel represented this report does not exist and DSP’s compliance with any statute other than the FOIA statute is outside this Office’s authority, it was determined that DSP did not violate FOIA.Read More
Petitioner alleged DNREC improperly denied her request for a site safety report, but DNREC’s legal counsel responded the report did not yet exist.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. FOIA does not require a public body to produce a record that does not exist.
Petitioner alleged that DELJIS improperly denied his request for statistical information from the Criminal Justice Information System databases because DELJIS failed to contact other state agencies to retrieve records responsive to his request and DELJIS improperly asserted exemptions for investigatory and criminal history information.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. FOIA does not require DELJIS to contact other state agencies to collect records for this request. In addition, FOIA does not require a public body to create a new record, and fulfilling this request would require DELJIS to create a new record.Read More
Petitioner alleged that DNREC improperly asserted the exemptions for pending or potential litigation and for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine in denying his request for records pertaining to an ongoing dispute over the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act (“REPSA”) regulations.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found, as the pending litigation exemption applies.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Board did not provide adequate notice to the public that a censure resolution of a school board member would be discussed and voted on at the February 11, 2020 meeting. Specifically, he alleged that the Board added the item without adequate public notice, violated emergency meeting requirements, did not place the agenda item in the appropriate section of the agenda, and did not include the language of the resolution.Read More