Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567 (1979)
The Freedom of Information Law does not require disclosure of law enforcement records that reveal non-routine criminal investigative techniques if disclosure would create a substantial likelihood that violators could evade detection.
Summary
An attorney for several nursing homes sought to compel the release of the Deputy Attorney-General’s office manual used for investigating nursing home fraud under the Freedom of Information Law. The New York Court of Appeals held that portions of the manual revealing confidential, non-routine methods used for investigating nursing home fraud were exempt from disclosure because revealing them would allow unscrupulous actors to evade detection by tailoring their conduct to avoid those specific investigative techniques. This decision balances the public’s right to know with the need for effective law enforcement.
Facts
In 1974, reports of abuse and fraud in nursing homes prompted the Attorney General to investigate. Charles J. Hynes was appointed Special Prosecutor. The Governor expanded the Special Prosecutor’s jurisdiction to investigate criminal violations related to the management or funding of any nursing home. The Special Prosecutor created an office manual, “Materials on the Nursing Home Investigation,” which included an overview of the nursing home industry, a step-by-step guide to investigations and audits, and a sample nursing home investigation.
Procedural History
Petitioner, an attorney for nursing homes, requested a copy of the manual. The respondent refused, and the petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding. Special Term ordered disclosure, finding the manual to be an administrative staff manual. The Appellate Division modified, concluding that Chapter V and portions of Chapter IV were exempt from disclosure. Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether portions of the office manual of the Deputy Attorney-General and Special Prosecutor for Nursing Homes, which reveal confidential methods used for investigating nursing home fraud, are exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(iv) as records compiled for law enforcement purposes which, if disclosed, would reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures?
Holding
No, in part, because effective law enforcement demands that violators not be informed of non-routine procedures by which an agency obtains information. Yes, in part, because some information was simply a recitation of obvious auditing techniques.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court recognized the public’s right to know and the purpose of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to allow the electorate to make informed choices and hold government accountable. However, FOIL also acknowledges the need for confidentiality in certain instances. The Court stated, “Only where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld.” The court addressed the exemption under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(iv), which allows agencies to deny access to records compiled for law enforcement purposes if disclosure would reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures (except routine ones). The court emphasized that FOIL should not enable people to frustrate investigations or construct defenses to impede prosecution. The court reasoned that records clarifying procedural or substantive law must be disclosed, as this encourages voluntary compliance. However, non-routine investigative techniques, which if disclosed would give rise to a substantial likelihood that violators could evade detection, are exempt. The court stated, “The Freedom of Information Law was not enacted to furnish the safecracker with the combination to the safe.” After an in camera inspection, the Court found that Chapter V and certain portions of Chapter IV contained non-routine techniques. The court noted that disclosing these techniques would alert unscrupulous operators and allow them to alter their activities to minimize the possibility of being caught. However, the Court held that information that was a “recitation of the obvious” regarding auditing techniques was not exempt and should be disclosed. The Court found that because federal law was analogous, federal case law and legislative history are instructive.