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 Delaware Prosperity Partnership is a public body and is obligated to respond to his request for certain records.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. DPP was determined not to be a public body subject to FOIA.Read More
Petitioner alleged that New Castle County redacted “flagged” information from 911 records pertaining to his address without citing a statutory exemption from FOIA. The County responded that the “flagged” information maintained in the 911 system contains specific warnings and response strategies that aid law enforcement in responding to a particular address and that the disclosure of flagged information may endanger the safety of neighboring citizens and the responding officers, and is thus exempt pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(17).
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. FOIA requires a public body to provide a reason for denying a request but does not require a specific citation to the statute. Based on the County’s representations, this Office found that the County properly asserted the 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(17) exemption in these circumstances.Read More
Petitioner alleged DelDOT improperly denied his FOIA request on behalf of his client for draft appraisals and communications regarding appraisals by citing exemptions for pending or potential litigation, trade secrets or commercial or financial information, and attorney-client privilege.
DECIDED: This Office determined that DelDOT adequately demonstrated that potential litigation with DelDOT is likely or reasonably foreseeable and the draft appraisals and the communications related to the appraisals have a clear nexus to this potential litigation. Thus, these records were exempt under 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(9) and properly withheld under FOIA.Read More
PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion No. 19-IB66 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Attorney General Opinion No. 19-IB66 November 26, 2019 VIA EMAIL Mr. Richard Stifter The Claims Center P.O. Box 47604 Plymouth, MN 55447 Richard.firstname.lastname@example.org RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the City of Wilmington Dear Mr. Stifter: […]Read More
Petitioner alleged Sussex County improperly denied her FOIA requests. The County provided a cost estimate for certain records, and the Petitioner also alleged that the County improperly denied her request to reduce the cost estimate by the value of the time employees performing the search had spent on personal internet usage in a time period prior to the search.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The records requested related to pending or potential litigation, and no error was found in the County’s denial of the Petitioner’s request to subtract employees’ personal internet time from the costs estimated to fulfill the Petitioner’s request.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Christina School District Board’s October 8, 2019 vote by secret ballot to fill a vacancy violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements; that the Board must have improperly made the decision to conduct the vote by that method in executive session; and that the Board must have improperly decided on candidate interview questions outside of a public meeting.
DECIDED: In Attorney General Opinion No. 19-IB63, this Office found that the District violated FOIA with respect to the secret ballot process and the executive session at the October 8, 2019 meeting. With regard to the allegations regarding the interview format and questions, this Office accepted the representations of the Board’s attorney and found no additional FOIA violations.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the Christina School District Board’s October 8, 2019 vote by secret ballot to fill a vacancy violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements and that the Board must have improperly made the decision to conduct the vote by that method in executive session.
DECIDED: This Office determined that there were two violations of FOIA. A secret ballot violates FOIA’s open meeting requirements. This Office also found that the Board provided no factual allegations upon which to determine whether a discussion of voting procedures actually occurred during the executive session or if the executive session was held for a proper purpose. Thus, the Board failed to meet its burden of justifying the October 8, 2019 executive session.Read More
Petitioner alleged that the City of Wilmington improperly denied their request for records of activations of the City’s gunshot detection system, ShotSpotter, by citing the exemptions for investigatory and intelligence files when the City had previously provided them and on occasion publicizes the information. The City responded that they began using such records for investigative purposes in April 2017.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found for asserting the investigatory file exemption for the requested records after April 2017, but this Office recommended the City review its records and provide a supplemental response for records generated before that time and for records used to publicize sets of the data requested.Read More
Petitioner alleged that DSHS improperly denied their request for documents regarding expenditures of public funds on Newport police officers by citing the exemptions for investigatory files, criminal history records, and records pertaining to pending or potential litigation.
DECIDED: Based on the record presented to this Office, DSHS did not meet its burden to justify the denial of those records. This Office recommended that DSHS respond to the request in compliance with FOIA within 15 business days of this Opinion.Read More
Petitioner alleged that DNREC’s FOIA Coordinator violated FOIA by failing to provide adequate assistance by not responding to questions emailed on September 10, 2019 email and that the cost estimate was flawed because DNREC could use lower-paid employees to perform the search of electronic records; the nature of the work required was not included; and DNREC did not provide proof that it excluded fees necessary to perform a legal review of the responsive records.
No FOIA violation was found. DNREC’s failure to respond to the petitioner’s inquiries in these circumstances do not rise to the level of a FOIA violation. Based upon DNREC’s sworn affidavit and the representations made in response, this Office did not find a FOIA violation in DNREC’s preparation of this cost estimate.