Matter of Emilie Munson et al. v New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
The case concerns public access to law-enforcement certification records under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law article 6 [New York's public-records law that presumptively makes agency records available unless a statutory exemption applies], specifically a statewide registry maintained under Executive Law § 845 [requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to keep a central registry of certified police and peace officers].
Supreme Court held that the Division of Criminal Justice Services had not shown a sufficient possibility of danger from disclosure and ordered release of the certified-officer registry with redactions for residence city or zip code and undercover-training information.
The Appellate Division reversed the disclosure order and dismissed the petition, holding that the registry of certified officers could be withheld in full.
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 comparing the state registry with local public payroll databases could reveal the identities of undercover officers or permit calculation of undercover staffing levels. The court further found that redactions would not adequately eliminate that risk.
Background
The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services maintains a central registry listing every certified police officer and peace officer in the state, including each officer's name, date of birth, social security number, rank or title, employer, and training-completion date. In August 2022, Albany Times Union reporter Emilie Munson requested records for all certified and decertified officers, including names, residence city or zip code, current and former employers, ranks or positions, and training history. The agency referred her to its public list of decertified officers but denied access to the full certified-officer registry, stating that release could endanger lives or safety because the registry includes undercover officers and the agency cannot identify or segregate them from the database. Petitioners then brought a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. In an earlier appeal, the Appellate Division remitted for further submissions and in camera review on whether additional redaction of identifying information was necessary.
Lower Court Decision
After remittal, Supreme Court adhered to its earlier ruling and concluded that the agency still had not established a sufficient possibility of endangerment. It ordered disclosure of the registry, with redaction of officers' city or zip code of residence and any undercover-training information.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed. The majority held that the agency met its burden under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f) by showing that disclosure of the registry could expose undercover officers in two ways: first, by allowing a requester to compare the registry with a local police department's public payroll database and identify names appearing only in the state registry; and second, by allowing requesters to infer the number of undercover officers or changes in undercover staffing over time from employer-level data. The court found those risks sufficient even if names or other fields were redacted, because the agency cannot itself determine which officers are undercover and because selective redaction of undercover-training entries could itself reveal sensitive information. The court therefore dismissed the petition and held that petitioners were not entitled to counsel fees or costs because they had not substantially prevailed.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that, under FOIL, an agency need only show a possibility of endangerment to invoke the life-or-safety exemption. It also confirms that courts may uphold withholding where requested records, when combined with other readily available public data, could identify protected law-enforcement personnel or reveal sensitive operational staffing levels. The ruling is significant for law-enforcement transparency disputes because it allows an entire database to be withheld when cross-referencing risks cannot be cured by redaction. A two-justice dissent argued that the agency's showing remained speculative and that the majority improperly relied on a broader public-safety rationale not clearly advanced during the administrative process.
A statewide police-certification registry may be withheld under FOIL when disclosure, even in redacted form, could be cross-referenced with other public records to reveal undercover officers or undercover staffing patterns.