Records
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-05-26
Requests for scholastic records should be responded to within FOIA’s deadlines instead of the 45-day ceiling allowed under the federal educational rights law (FERPA). Schools may not limit requests to inspect records, nor can they require that requesters use a specific form or online portal to submit a FOIA request. AO-05-26 May 5, 2026 Ms.…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-04-26
A county is a political subdivision and an arm of the Commonwealth and, therefore, is not a “citizen of the Commonwealth” for purposes of subsection A of § 2.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia. A public official may submit a FOIA request in their individual capacity as a citizen of the Commonwealth. AO-04-26 May 5,…
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-06-26
Regulations and statutes are laws, not records “in the transaction of public business” and are published “as otherwise specifically provided by law.” Therefore they are not public records subject to FOIA. AO-06-26 May 4, 2026 The Honorable Albert C. Pollard, Jr.Via Electronic Mail The staff of the Freedom of Information Advisory Council is authorized to…
-
-
FOI Advisory Council Opinion, AO-02-26
AO-02-26 February 23, 2026 Mr. Mital GandhiLoudoun, VirginiaRequest received via email The staff of the Freedom of Information Advisory Council is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your email of September 3, 2024. Background You have asked for the opinion of this office…
-
Attorney General Opinion 23-016
School districts can enter into settlement agreements. If it was compiled for litigation, it may be exempt, but that’s a fact-specific determination. The amounts paid is not confidential.
-
Wilson v. City of Williamsburg (GDC)
General District Court judge rules that a settlement agreement on its own is not exempt as attorney work product. It might have been prepared for litigation, which might be exempt, but without seeing the settlement (neither party provided a copy), the court can’t assume that it was.
-
Gendreau v. McEvoy (circuit)
A Roanoke Circuit Court ruled a county water authority could not redact the expected water usage for a data center development because such information was not “proprietary.”
-
Virginia Department of Corrections v. Insider Inc. (COA, unpublished)
In an unpublished opinion issued Oct. 28, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that photos, videos and logs of canine bite incidents in Virginia’s prisons were exempt by section 2.2-3706(B)(4), which says prison officials may withhold “records of persons imprisoned in penal institutions in the Commonwealth provided such records relate to the imprisonment.” A…
-
Maddox v. City of Chesapeake (COA-unpublished)
The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, rules the Chesapeake did not have to give a former police lieutenant a redacted copy of a duty schedule for the city’s 911 call center because his knowledge of the scheduling system would allow him to figure out who was working and thus who made a complaint…
-
Horner v. Office of Attorney General (COA-unpublished)
The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the working papers exemption extends to the entire office of the attorney general, not just to the AG as an official.
-
Virginia State Conference NAACP v. Governor Glenn Youngkin (COA-unpublished)
The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that because the trial court did not make a ruling on attorney fees, the underlying case was not yet over. The trial court ruled the governor could withhold records on voting rights restoration under the working papers exemption.
-
Commonwealth v. Sawyer (COA)
The Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled April 29, 2025, that the trial court was right to find that the plaintiff (Sawyer) had stated an adequate claim under FOIA, but was wrong to order all of the records to be released without looking over any of them to see if the working papers exemption applied.…
-
City of Roanoke v. Schwaner (Roanoke Circuit Court)
A Roanoke Circuit Court judge issued a declaratory judgment confirming that neither the City of Roanoke’s internal policies nor the contract it had with Flock Group, Inc., over the use of Flock’s license plate reader cameras could override the city’s duty to comply with a FOIA request for Flock data.
-
Blackstock v. Virginia Department of Transportation (COA)
The Court of Appeals for Virginia rules that VDOT could assert an exemption for the first time on appeal because the exemption contained a prohibition against release of specific information; it was an ‘other law’ that prohibited release. The exemption at issue is 2.2-3705.3(7): ““Investigative notes, correspondence and information furnished in confidence, and records otherwise…
-
Juarez v. Commonwealth’s Attorney for Prince William County (circuit court)
Circuit Court Judge Angela Horan ruled the Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney violated FOIA multiple times over an 18-month period by failing to respond, not providing all the records requested, and not matching redactions with an exemption. The judge ordered the CA to pay the petitioner $22,500 in attorney fees.
-
Minium v. Hines (COA)
The Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled against the Hanover sheriff, who said he could redact the names of 220 police officers from a spreadsheet of salary information because those officers might one day be used in undercover operations. “Hypothetical future undercover operations, by their very nature as ‘hypothetical,’ are not yet a reality and…
-
NPR v. Virginia Department of Corrections (COA-unpublished)
In an unpublished opinion, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that four tapes made of executions between 1987 and 1990 are 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 court)
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.