10. Police techniques

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

Law enforcement records may be withheld from disclosure under the Public Records Act to the extent that they would disclose confidential techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions. AS 40.25.120(6)(E), or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigation or prosecution if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. AS 40.25.120(6)(F).

Wiretapping activity cannot be revealed except to specific public officials involved in the investigation.  A.R.S. § 13-3011.

Unless the technique or manual fits into the “open investigation” exception, the Attorney General has opined that it is subject to disclosure. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-134. Furthermore, any training manuals located in a police officer’s personnel file is subject to the FOIA. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2008-046.
Sections of the Department of Correction’s procedures dealing with emergency situations are exempt from the FOIA. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-27-137(a).

Exempt. Police techniques or “security procedures” are expressly exempt from disclosure under Section 7923.600.

Records of security procedures may be withheld under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-305(5) if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

See Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-210(b)(3) (law enforcement exemption) in Records Outline at II.A.2.c.

Not specified.

The D.C. Act does not specifically address police techniques, although D.C. Code Ann. § 2-534(a)(3) may apply.  Recently, the District attempted to justify withholding documents concerning the police department's use of breathalyzer tests under the investigatory records exemption.  The D.C. Court of Appeals explained that withholding would be appropriate only if "(1) the documents requested . . . [were] compiled for law enforcement purposes, and (2) disclosure of those documents would interfere with enforcement proceedings."  Fraternal Order of Police, Metro. Labor Comm. v. District of Columbia, 82 A.3d 803, 815 (D.C. 2014).

Information revealing police surveillance techniques, procedures or personnel, and information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency is not subject to public inspection. Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(d) (2020). But see Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Prof’l Law Enforcement Ass’n, 997 So. 2d (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (aviation unit of county police department required to make public personal flight logs of department pilots, which are created as part of their administrative duties and is the official business of the department’s aviation unit, as public records under Fla. Stat. § 119.011(11)).

O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(3) exempts from disclosure law enforcement records that if revealed would be reasonably likely to disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential investigative or prosecution material which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or persons, or the existence of a confidential surveillance or investigation.

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

Information in an investigatory record compiled for law enforcement that would disclose investigative techniques and procedures is exempt from disclosure. Idaho Code § 74-124(1)(e).

Only specialized investigative techniques which would result in demonstrable harm to the public body that is the recipient of the request are exempt.  5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(v). Generic police techniques are open. Id.; Public Access Opinion 11-002 (available at  https://perma.cc/JN7C-MKZJ) (number of police officers assigned to districts is subject to disclosure).

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue, except the general exception under Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-4(b)(1)for law enforcement investigatory records, which may be released at the agency’s discretion. Criminal intelligence information is confidential under Indiana Code Section 5-2-4-6.

See generally Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

Mentioned at K.S.A. 45-221(a)(10)(D). The presumption is that they are closed as part of a criminal investigation.

Generally open. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.878(1)(h).

Exempt. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:3(A)(3). But a general assertion that certain documents reveal investigative techniques is insufficient to justify the privilege. The law enforcement agency must produce evidence to substantiate the claim of privilege and the party seeking discovery of the records must be afforded meaningful cross-examination to allow the discovering party to contradict the assertion of the privilege. Freeman v. Guaranty Broad. Corp., 498 So.2d 218 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1986).

In general, “investigative techniques and procedures or security plans and procedures not generally known by the general public” are confidential. 16 M.R.S.A. § 804(7). However, in 2021, the Legislature passed An Act to Increase Government Accountability by Removing the Restriction on the Dissemination of Information Regarding Investigations. L.D. 894 (130th Legis. 2021). The Act repeals a 2013 law (16 M.R.S.A. § 807) that allowed state law enforcement to issue “Glomar” responses neither confirming the existence or nonexistence of information made confidential by 16 M.R.S.A. § 804. Id.

A custodian may deny access of investigatory records to a person in interest if, among other things, the disclosure would disclose an investigative technique. § 4-351(b)(5). Inspection of records by a notary public or any other person in interest may be denied if, among other things, the inspection could disclose an investigative technique or procedure.  § 4-332(d)(5).

Reports of discharge of weapons by police officers must be disclosed.  Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 284, 293 (1979).

Not specifically addressed.

Information regarding investigative techniques is non-public, however, “information, reports, or memoranda that have been adopted as the final opinion or justification for a decision of a law enforcement agency are public data.” Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 25.

Records that would disclose investigatory techniques and/or the results of investigative techniques fall under the definition of “investigative report.” See N.4.a and N.4.b above; § 25-61-3(f)(iv).

Information regarding police practices and equipment is not subject to the Sunshine Law when it does not affect the general public. See Fletcher v. Tomlinson, No. 4:14-CV-999, 2014 WL 5425555 at *3 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (holding that information relating to a police department’s use of temporary stunning instrumentalities affected the general public and was subject to the Sunshine Law, but that the incidents surrounding an individual’s arrest did not affect the general public and were not subject to the Sunshine Law).

Confidential informants are private criminal justice information and not available for public dissemination. However, any allegation that an officer violated the public trust in carrying out some technique is not “private” information and may be disclosed. See Great Falls Tribune v. Cascade County Sheriff, 238 Mont. 103, 775 P.2d 1267 (1989); Citizens to Recall Whitlock v. Whitlock, 255 Mont. 517, 844 P.2d 74 (1992); Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman Police Dept., 260 Mont. 218, 859 P.2d 435 (1993). In each of cases, the court found that the individual officer, public employee or elected official has very little expectation of privacy, and the public has a fundamental right to know what public employees are doing.

There is no law on point.

 

See Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630 (1990).

Neither the Statute nor case law addresses this issue.

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 exempts from access:

emergency or security information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein;

security measures and surveillance techniques which, if disclosed, would create a risk to the safety of persons, property, electronic data or software.

*                *                *

a list of persons identifying themselves as being in need of special assistance in the event of an emergency maintained by a municipality for public safety purposes pursuant to section 1 of P.L.2017, c.266 (C.40:48-2.67);

and

a list of persons identifying themselves as being in need of special assistance in the event of an emergency maintained by a county for public safety purposes pursuant to section 6 of P.L.2011, c.178 (C.App.A:9-43.13).

See also Gilleran v. Township of Bloomfield, 227 N.J. 159 (2016) - Supreme Court of New Jersey determined that security camera footage of municipal parking lot was exempt from access under OPRA due to the two security exemptions in OPRA.

Police techniques may be confidential information and thus not available to the public. NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1(D); § 29-10-4.

An agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures. N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 87(2)(e)(iv) (McKinney Supp. 1988). Records which may reveal law enforcement techniques may also be exempt under the general exemption for records which, if disclosed, would endanger the life or safety of any person. N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 87(2)(f) (McKinney Supp. 1988).

For cases on police techniques, see DeZimm v. Connelie, 64 N.Y.2d 860, 476 N.E.2d 646, 487 N.Y.S.2d 320 (1985) (denying access to portions of State Police administrative manual concerning procedures for electronic surveillance and monitoring devices); Smith v. Capasso, 200 A.D.2d 502, 608 N.Y.S.2d 815 (1st Dep’t 1994); Spencer v. New York State Police, 187 A.D.2d 919, 591 N.Y.S.2d 207 (3d Dep’t 1992) (denying access to non-routine, highly detailed step-by-step depictions of the investigatory process and methods of gathering information, and portions of the file describing autopsies performed on victims, but granting access to files regarding surveillance, establishment of roadblocks and lists of evidence seized); Lyon v. Dunne, 180 A.D.2d 922, 580 N.Y.S.2d 803 (3d Dep’t 1992), motion for leave to appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 758 (1992) (denying access to laboratory analyses of evidence because it would reveal nonroutine techniques and procedures, however, evidence inventory list is not exempt from disclosure); Ennis v. Slade, 179 A.D.2d 558, 579 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1st Dep’t 1992), motion for leave to appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 758 (1992) (denying access to records of narcotics buy operation); Moore v. Santucci, 151 A.D.2d 676, 543 N.Y.S.2d 103, (2d Dep’t 1989) (ballistic and fingerprinting tests are routine investigative techniques); Allen v. Strojnowski, 129 A.D.2d 700, 514 N.Y.S.2d 463 (3d Dep’t 1987), motion for leave to appeal denied, 70 N.Y.2d 871, 518 N.E.2d 5, 523 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1987) (denying access to reports revealing nonroutine techniques for processing homicide scene); Muniz v. Roth, 162 Misc.2d 293, 620 N.Y.S.2d 700 (Sup. Ct., Tompkins Cty. 1994) (granting access to fingerprint tests because they are routine investigative techniques); Banfield v. Michael, N.Y.L.J., March 20, 1985 (Sup. Ct., New York Cty., 1985) (denying access to financial records which would reveal criminal investigative techniques); Kotler v. Suffolk Police Dep’t, (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 7, 1983) (granting access to fingerprint and polygraph records as product of routine procedures); Foley v. Wilson, No. 20250 (Sup. Ct., Wayne Cty., Nov. 23, 1982) (directing that records relating to pending investigation and criminal action be made available only after completion of proceedings, including breathalyzer test results and operation checklist); Kwoczka v. Cawley, 103 Misc.2d 13, 425 N.Y.S.2d 247 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (denying access to testimony, audio and videotapes of undercover police investigation on basis that disclosure would identify informants and “secret tricks and techniques”); Matter of Warner, N.Y.L.J. (1st Dep’t March 17, 1995) (ordering in camera inspection of police training material to determine whether exempt as criminal investigative techniques or procedures or would endanger life or safety of any person).

Police techniques are not specifically addressed by statute but likely could be withheld as criminal intelligence or criminal investigative records. G.S. § 132-1.4(b).

Generally closed. See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7.

Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures are explicitly exempted from disclosure.  Ohio Rev. Code §§ 149.43(A)(1)(h), 149.43(A)(2)(c).

Audio and video recordings of an arrest made by a law enforcement agency are a public record under the Act. Ward & Lee, P.L.C. v. City of Claremore, 2014 OK CIV APP 1. Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) records related to things like training, procedures of a tactical nature, radio log information, etc. are confidential. 51 O.S. § 24A.8(F).

Information compiled in investigations not connected with pending or contemplated prosecution may remain confidential if it would disclose investigative techniques and procedures. See Jensen v. Schiffman, 24 Or. App. 11, 544 P.2d 1048 (1976); Attorney General’s Manual § I(G)(a)(3).

The Law does not explicitly exempt police techniques from its requirements, but the language of 65 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 67.708(b)(16) suggests police agencies may argue the relationship between the revelation of specific investigations to police techniques generally.

Law enforcement agency investigative records which could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source are exempt from disclosure.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(D)(d).

Closed, presumably. SDCL §§1-27-1.5 (5) and (8).

Generally open. See Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. 2007)

Internal law enforcement detection and investigation methods are generally exempt under Section 552.108. In Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex. 1977), the Texas Supreme Court held that the Act excepts law enforcement information if release "will unduly interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention."  In Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-531 (1989), the Attorney General advised that detailed portions of a police department's "use of force" procedures are excepted from disclosure under the Act because it "is reasonable to conclude that knowledge of these detailed guidelines would place an individual at an advantage in confrontations with police officers and would increase his chances of evading arrest or injuring the officer or other persons." However, other portions of the procedures that only restate generally known common law, constitutional, or Penal Code provisions are public.

Records that reasonably could be expected to disclose investigative techniques that are not generally known outside of government are protected from public disclosure. Utah Code § 63G-2-305(10)(e).

Records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime are exempt from disclosure, including records that “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecution if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5)(a)(v).

Specific tactical plans, if their release would jeopardize law enforcement personnel or public safety, and staffing, logistics, or tactical plans of undercover operations or protective details are subject to exclusion and to discretionary release.  This does not permit the withholding of information concerning the overall costs of operations. Va. Code. Ann. § 2.2-3706.B.5 and 8.

Investigative records that disclose police techniques may be withheld if nondisclosure is necessary for effective law enforcement.  RCW 42.56.240(1).  The state Supreme Court has held that records of internal police investigations are public, but the names of complaining persons and law enforcement officers who are the subject of complaints may be withheld. Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Wash. State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (finding, on the facts of the case, that nondisclosure is necessary for effective law enforcement).

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

Investigatory records generally are subject to the common law balancing test. Appleton Post-Crescent v. Janssen, 149 Wis. 2d 294, 441 N.W.2d 255 (Ct. App. 1989); Journal/Sentinel Inc. v. Aagerup, 145 Wis. 2d 818, 429 N.W.2d 772 (Ct. App. 1988). A district attorney has the discretion to withhold its investigatory records. State ex rel. Richard v. Foust, 165 Wis. 2d 429, 477 N.W.2d 608 (1991). Juvenile investigatory records are not open to inspection except for news gatherers who wish to obtain news without revealing the identity of the child. Wis. Stat. § 48.396(1).

No Wyoming cases have discussed this issue.