Records
-
NPR v. Virginia Department of Corrections (COA)
In an unpublished opinion, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that four tapes made of executions between 1987 and 1990 are records records “of persons imprisoned” that can be withheld under 2.2-3706(B)(4).
-
Town of South Hill v. Hawkins (COA)
The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s decisions requiring several documents to be released with minimal redactions. They do not constitute personnel information as defined by the Virginia Supreme Court (the first time this case went through the appeals process) because disclosure would not be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy to a reasonable…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-08-24
FOIA policy provides that all public records are presumed open for inspection or copying, unless an exemption is properly invoked. There is a fundamental duty in FOIA for a public body to collaborate with a requester in the production of the records requested. FOIA does not prohibit or restrict access rights under the attorney-client or…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-07-24
Any response by a public body to a FOIA request for public records shall comply with the provisions of subsection B of § 2.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia. The working papers exemption in subdivision 2 of § 2.2-3705.7 of the Code of Virginia was designed to provide a zone of privacy for the deliberative…
-
Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads v. Raja (Circuit)
The chief judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court ruled the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (HRT) did not have the duty to search employees’ personal phones, nor did it have the authority to compel the employees to turn their phones over, in response to a FOIA request for text messages about public business that might…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-06-24
FOIA affirmatively requires that “records of the name, position, job classification, official salary, or rate of pay of, and records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to, any officer, official, or employee of a public body” be made available to the public. However, while the Virginia personnel information exemption requires the release of…
-
Minium v. Chesterfield County (circuit court)
A Chesterfield County Circuit Court ruled that the Chesterfield Police Department can redact names of many of its officers from a spreadsheet of salary information because those officers can be used for undercover operations at any time.
-
Keil v. O’Sullivan (Court of Appeals)
Former police officer is not entitled to investigative records about an incident involving the officer because he is not a “data subject” under the Government Data Collection & Dessimination Practices Act. Also some FOIA issues.
-
Citizens for Fauquier County v. Warrenton (COA)
The Court of Appeals rules that a city/town invoking the working papers and correspondence exemption (in particular, the correspondence part), cannot invoke it on behalf of both the city/town mayor AND the city/town manager (or other executive officer). The city/town must choose between the two. The court also says that the method by which Warrenton…
-
City of Norfolk v. Zoghi (COA)
The Court of Appeals of Virginia rules — in an unpublished opinion — that the City of Norfolk cannot withhold records related to a juvenile crime victim under §16.1-301, which, the court says, only applies to the withholding of records related to juvenile defendants.
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-05-24
FOIA does not require a public body to charge a requester at all, but if charges are assessed, FOIA provides that a public body may only do so within the stated limitations. A public body may assess charges for the production of requested records which includes the hourly rate of pay for the staff that…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-02-24
A public body shall not be required to create a new record if the record does not already exist; however, a public body is required to provide to a requester, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, a public record in the medium requested if the public record is identified with reasonable specificity and if that…
-
Lee BHM v. School Board of the City of Richmond (Circuit Ct.)
Circuit Court judge Reilly Marchant rules a report prepared by a law firm for the school board was not protected by attorney-client privilege in its entirety. Specific parts that actually reflect legal advice may be redacted, but otherwise, the report is a fact-finding endeavor, not legal advice, even if legal consequences could follow from the…
-
Minium v. Hines (Hanover Circuit Court)
Hanover Circuit Court says the names of most officers in the Hanover Sheriff’s office can be kept off of a spreadsheet of department salaries because some of those officers might one day work undercover.
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-03-23
Upon a receipt of a request, a public body must respond in accordance with the established provisions and timeframes in subsection B of § 2.2-3704. If part of the requested records are being withheld from release, a public body shall identify with reasonable particularity the subject matter of withheld portions, and cite, as to each…
-
FOI Advisory Council opinion AO-02-23
A Governor-elect’s transition teams generally would not be public bodies subject to FOIA unless they are supported wholly or principally by public funds. Transition team records might be public records subject to FOIA (i) if the transition team is a public body because it is supported by public funds or (ii) if transition team records…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-01-23
Public Subsection D of § 15.2-2907 exempts the Commission on Local Government and certain meetings from FOIA, but does not otherwise address access to public records under FOIA. Also discussed the attorney-client privilege exemption, delivery methods and remedies available under FOIA.
-
Hawkins v. South Hill (remand)
Mecklenburg Circuit Court judge orders release of redacted records previously withheld under the personnel records exemption.
-
Dooley v. Gloucester School Board
Gloucester County General District Court: Meeting to discuss disciplining a fellow board meet was improper based on the notice given; recording made in the meeting must be released.
-
Hawkins v. South Hill (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court of Virginia interprets the personnel exemption and imposes guardrails on governments from applying it broadly.
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-01-22
Public bodies are required to provide cost estimates for the production of public records upon request, but FOIA does not specify the level of detail to be included with a cost estimate. Because an estimate is inexact by definition and sometimes the total costs that may be incurred cannot be predicted with accuracy, FOIA does not require a public body to…
-
Stanfield v. Norfolk (Circuit Court)
A Norfolk circuit judge ruled that elected officials are not public bodies who have to respond to FOIA requests, the public body’s response obligations are triggered when one of those officials receives a request. The judge also makes rulings on providing a “legal address” in a request and on unauthorized prepayment requirements for requests estimated…
-
Keefe v. Lovettsville
Loudoun County General District Court Judge Matthew Snow rules the town violated FOIA when it required a deposit of $115 (FOIA says a deposit can be requested for amounts over $200) and when the requester said she was going to ask the FOIA Council for its opinion, the town said it considered such an action…
-
Kessler v. Charlottesville (Cir. Ct.)
The Public Records Act “clearly has an administrative purpose — and seems, in fact, totally administrative and procedural — for the benefit of the good operation of the state government and its agencies and (unlike FOIA) not for the benefit of individual citizens themselves.” The court confirms that text messages are public records, however: “If the documents…
-
Attorney General 20-034
“The Virginia Freedom of Information Act requires local police departments to release footage from body-worn and/or dashboard cameras related to officer-involved shootings unless an exception applies.” This opinion isn’t novel, but it does review the issue in part under the new §2.2-3706.1.