Matter of Emilie Munson et al. v New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public records access and law-enforcement confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law article 6 [New York's public records disclosure law], specifically whether the statewide registry of certified police and peace officers maintained under Executive Law § 845 [requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to maintain a registry of certified police and peace officers containing identifying and training-related information] must be disclosed.
Supreme Court held that the registry had to be disclosed, with redactions for residential city or zip code and training information related to undercover work.
The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's disclosure order and dismissed the petition, holding that respondent properly denied the FOIL request for the certified-officer registry.
The court held that Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f) [exempts records that, if disclosed, could endanger the life or safety of any person] applied because disclosure of the registry, even with redactions, could be cross-referenced with local public payroll data to identify undercover or sensitive officers or to estimate undercover staffing levels, creating at least a possibility of endangerment.
Background
The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services maintains a central registry of all police and peace officers certified to serve in New York. In August 2022, reporter Emilie Munson requested, under FOIL, records concerning all certified and decertified officers, including names, residence information, employers, ranks, positions, and training history. The agency directed her to its public list of decertified officers but denied access to the full certified-officer registry, arguing that disclosure could endanger officer safety because the registry includes undercover officers and the agency cannot independently identify or segregate them. Petitioners then brought a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging that denial.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court partially granted the petition and ordered disclosure of the registry with certain redactions. After an earlier appeal and remittal for further submissions and in camera review, Supreme Court again concluded that respondent had not shown a sufficient possibility of endangerment. It ordered disclosure of the registry with redaction of officers' city or zip code of residence and undercover-training information.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed. The majority held that respondent met its burden under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f) because disclosure of the statewide registry could be compared with local agencies' public payroll databases to reveal which certified officers were omitted locally due to undercover or sensitive assignments. The court further held that even if names and some identifying details were redacted, disclosure of employer-linked registry data could still reveal the number of undercover officers in a department and changes in undercover staffing over time. Because these risks were not merely theoretical, the court concluded that redaction would not adequately protect safety and that the entire registry could be withheld. The petition was dismissed, and petitioners were not entitled to counsel fees because they had not substantially prevailed.
Legal Significance
This decision confirms a broad application of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f) in the law-enforcement context. It emphasizes that an agency may withhold records not only when the records directly identify undercover officers, but also when the records could be combined with other publicly available information to identify those officers or to infer operational details such as undercover staffing levels. The ruling also shows that courts may consider risks to third-party confidentiality and safety when evaluating FOIL exemptions, even where partial redaction is proposed.
A FOIL requester may be denied access to an entire law-enforcement registry where cross-referencing the requested records with other public sources could expose undercover officers or reveal sensitive staffing information; under New York law, a demonstrated possibility of endangerment is enough.