De Zimm v. Connelie, 64 N.Y.2d 862 (1985)
A court’s determination regarding whether disclosure of particular law enforcement materials would reveal criminal investigative techniques is an exercise of discretion, and the Appellate Division’s determination will only be disturbed if there is an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Summary
De Zimm, involved in litigation against the State, requested disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) of State Police regulations on recording conversations while wearing a monitoring device. The request was denied, citing law enforcement and intra-agency exemptions. Special Term ordered disclosure of article 13G of the Administrative Manual of the New York State Police after in camera inspection, but the Appellate Division reversed, fearing it would allow criminals to evade detection. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division’s determination was an exercise of discretion, which it would only overturn for abuse of discretion as a matter of law, a contention not made by the petitioner.
Facts
Petitioner De Zimm was involved in litigation against the State of New York.
De Zimm requested disclosure from the State Police, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), of regulations concerning an officer’s duty to record conversations while wearing a monitoring device.
The State Police denied the request, arguing the materials were compiled for law enforcement purposes and would reveal criminal investigative techniques and procedures, and that they were intra-agency materials.
Procedural History
Special Term conducted an in camera inspection and ordered disclosure of article 13G of the Administrative Manual of the New York State Police.
The Appellate Division conducted its own in camera inspection and reversed the Special Term’s order.
The Court of Appeals granted review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion as a matter of law in determining that disclosure of the requested materials was not required under the Freedom of Information Law.
Holding
No, because the determination made below regarding whether disclosures of particular sections of the Administrative Manual would reveal criminal investigative techniques and procedures plainly involved an application of the courts’ discretion to their inspection of the materials in dispute. As an exercise of discretion, the determination of the Appellate Division will be disturbed by this court only where there is an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the determination regarding disclosure of law enforcement materials under FOIL involves an exercise of discretion by the courts based on their inspection of the materials.
The Court noted that the Appellate Division has the same power and discretion as Special Term, and it reached a different conclusion after its own in camera inspection.
The court articulated a highly deferential standard of review: “As an exercise of discretion, the determination of the Appellate Division will be disturbed by this court only where there is an abuse of discretion as a matter of law”.
Since the petitioner did not argue that the Appellate Division abused its discretion as a matter of law, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
The Appellate Division reasoned that the procedures in article 13G were not routine, and revealing them, including special restrictions on State Police and trade names, could allow criminals to tailor their activities to evade detection. The court quoted the Appellate Division: “allow miscreants to tailor their activities to evade detection.”