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 his client’s requests for records submitted to the Delaware Department of Agriculture were improperly denied. The Department asserted that the records were exempt by statute, pursuant to 29 Del. C. 10002(l)(6) and 3 Del. C. 2247.
DECIDED: The Department did not meet its burden to justify its denial of access to the requested records.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware Department of Insurance improperly denied his request on the basis of his status as a non-citizen and on the basis of other statutory provisions applicable to the Department.
DECIDED: No violation of FOIA occurred as alleged in the petition.Read More
Petitioner alleged that DOC improperly denied his request for DOC policies and other records.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation occurred, as 29 Del. C. 10002(l)(13) exempts any records in DOC’s possession which are sought by an inmate in DOC’s custody.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Department of Insurance improperly cited exemptions in response to its request for certain records.
DECIDED: The Department did not violate FOIA in denying the items in the request on the basis of the pending or potential litigation exemption, the statutory exemption for examination work papers, and the investigatory files exemption.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the City of Wilmington failed to respond to a request for records.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation occurred, as the City provided evidence of its timely response to the request.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police (“DSP”) improperly denied her request for a criminal complaint.
DECIDED: DSP did not violate FOIA, as the investigatory files exemption applies to the criminal complaint.
Petitioner alleged that that the City of Wilmington improperly denied his request for investigatory records related to a fire in Wilmington. The cause of the fire was not determined, and the investigation was marked undetermined/closed. The investigator reserved the ability to modify the investigative conclusion if new evidence was discovered.
DECIDED: The City did not violate FOIA by denying access to these records, as the City verified the records pertain to investigatory files for criminal law enforcement and this exemption applies even after the investigation is closed.
Petitioner alleged that the Department of State violated FOIA by failing to provide certain records responsive to his request for conference materials.
DECIDED: As the Department verified that the specific records requested do not exist, no FOIA violation was found.
Petitioner alleged that Delaware City violated FOIA by improperly responding to FOIA requests for its community center financial records, its FOIA log, and request for a lease agreement, including the following: 1) ) whether the responses from the City to Petitioner’s Community Center requests were timely and responsive in terms of its level of detail; 2) whether the City violated FOIA by failing to maintain its FOIA log and by erroneously marking the Community Center requests on the log as closed; 3) whether the City’s response to Petitioner’s request for an agreement was untimely, incomplete, and improperly designated as complete on the FOIA log; 4) whether the City’s request to fill out a certain form violated FOIA; and 5) whether certain aspects of the City’s FOIA website were improper, including the FOIA Coordinator information, the availability of multiple request forms, and the .pdf form not being a “fillable” document.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found, but the City was reminded to properly maintain its FOIA log, to accept FOIA requests as provided by the FOIA statute, and to timely update its FOIA Coordinator information.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Sussex Technical School District Board of Education did not give adequate notice on its agenda of its intent to appoint a superintendent.
DECIDED: The Board gave sufficient notice for discussing a job candidate’s qualifications in executive session by noting that “Personnel” would be discussed, but violated FOIA by not giving adequate notice of its intent to appoint a superintendent in open session. This Office recommended that the Board hold a new vote on the matter in a future meeting after providing more specific notice to the public.Read More