March 3, 2005

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.


I have received your letter concerning your efforts in gaining access to records of the Town of Huntington, particularly “surveillance tapes.” Although it appears that the Town agreed to make records sought available, you have raised a series of questions, and I will attempt to address them in the following commentary.

First, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to existing records, and §89(3) states in part that an agency, such as the Town, is not required to create or prepare a record in response to a request. It is my understanding that some of the records that you have requested were erased or discarded. To the extent that is so, there are no records to disclose or withhold, and the Freedom of Information Law would not apply.

Second, insofar as records exist, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law. I point out that the introductory language of §87(2) refers to the authority to withhold “records or portions thereof.” The phrase quoted in the preceding sentence indicates that there may be instances in which portions of records might be accessible, while others may be withheld. That being so, when portions of records may be withheld, an agency has the ability to delete or redact them, while providing access to the remainder. In the context of your request, portions of surveillance tapes may be withheld to the extent that the Town may properly assert an exception to rights of access appearing in §87(2).

With regard to rights of access to surveillance tapes, if the locations of surveillance cameras are known to the public and are in plain sight in public places, and if they capture information that could have been seen by those present, I do not believe that records containing that information may justifiably be withheld. On the other hand, when the locations of cameras are not known to the public, there may be one or more grounds for denial of access. When people do not know that their actions are being filmed, it is possible that cameras may record personal, intimate or embarrassing behavior. In those instances, relevant is §87(2)(b), which authorizes an agency to withhold records insofar as disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Perhaps more significantly, if the location of surveillance cameras is not known to the public, and if the cameras are used to record what may be illegal actions, §87(2)(e)(iv) permits an agency to withhold records that:

"are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which if disclosed would...reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures."

Pertinent is a decision in which it was held that the purpose of §87(2)(e)(iv):

"is to prevent violators of the law from being apprised of nonroutine procedures by which law enforcement officials gather information (Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 572, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463). 'The Freedom of Information Law was not enacted to furnish the safecracker with the combination to the safe' (id., at 573, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463). 'Indicative, but not necessarily dispositive, of whether investigative techniques are nonroutine is whether disclosure of those procedures would give rise to a substantial likelihood that violators could evade detection by deliberately tailoring their conduct in anticipation of avenues of inquiry to be pursued by [law enforcement] personnel***' (id., at 572, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463 [citations omitted]). Even though a particular procedure may be 'time-tested', it may nevertheless be nonroutine (id., at 573, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E. 2d 463). Likewise, a highly detailed step-by-step depiction of the investigatory process should be exempted from disclosure" [Spencer v. New York State Police, 591 NYS 2d 207, 209-210, 187 AD 919 (1992)].

In short, if potential lawbreakers are aware of the location of cameras, they may be able to carry out unlawful activity elsewhere, thereby evading effective law enforcement. In that kind of circumstance, I believe that records may be withheld under §87(2)(e)(iv).

Third, the Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:

"Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date when such request will be granted or denied..."

Based on the foregoing, an agency must grant access to records, deny access or acknowledge the receipt of a request within five business days of receipt of a request. When an acknowledgement is given, it must include an approximate date indicating when it can be anticipated that a request will be granted or denied.

I note that there is no precise time period within which an agency must grant or deny access to records. The time needed to do so may be dependent upon the volume of a request, the possibility that other requests have been made, the necessity to conduct legal research, the search and retrieval techniques used to locate the records and the like. In short, when an agency acknowledges the receipt of a request because more than five business days may be needed to grant or deny a request, so long as it provides an approximate date indicating when the request will be granted or denied, and that date is reasonable in view of the attendant circumstances, I believe that the agency would be acting in compliance with law.

In a judicial decision that cited and confirmed the advice rendered by this office, Linz v. The Police Department of the City of New York (Supreme Court, New York County, NYLJ, December 17, 2001), it was held that:

“In the absence of a specific statutory period, this Court concludes that respondents should be given a ‘reasonable’ period to comply with a FOIL request. The determination of whether a period is reasonable must be made on a case by case basis taking into account the volume of documents requested, the time involved in locating the material, and the complexity of the issues involved in determining whether the materials fall within one of the exceptions to disclosure. Such a standard is consistent with some of the language in the opinions, submitted by petitioners in this case, of the Committee on Open Government, the agency charged with issuing advisory opinions on FOIL.”

If neither a response to a request nor an acknowledgement of the receipt of a request is given within five business days, if an agency delays responding for an unreasonable time after it acknowledges that a request has been received, or if the acknowledgement of the receipt of a request fails to include an estimated date for granting or denying access, a request may, in my opinion, be considered to have been constructively denied [see DeCorse v. City of Buffalo, 239 AD2d 949, 950 (1997)]. In such a circumstance, I believe that the denial may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision states in relevant part that:

"...any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial to the head, chief executive, or governing body, who shall within ten business days of the receipt of such appeal fully explain in writing to the person requesting the record the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought."

In addition, it has been held that when an appeal is made but a determination is not rendered within ten business days of the receipt of the appeal as required under §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law, the appellant has exhausted his or her administrative remedies and may initiate a challenge to a constructive denial of access under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Rules [Floyd v. McGuire, 87 AD 2d 388, appeal dismissed 57 NY 2d 774 (1982)].

Fourth, I believe that a person other than an agency’s designated “Freedom of Information Officer” may respond to a request. By way of background, §89(1) of the Freedom of Information Law requires the Committee on Open Government to promulgate regulations concerning the procedural implementation of that statute (21 NYCRR Part 1401). In turn, §87(1) requires the governing body of a public corporation to adopt rules and regulations consistent those promulgated by the Committee and with the Freedom of Information Law. Further, §1401.2 of the regulations provides in relevant part that:

"(a) The governing body of a public corporation and the head of an executive agency or governing body of other agencies shall be responsible for insuring compliance with the regulations herein, and shall designate one or more persons as records access officer by name or by specific job title and business address, who shall have the duty of coordinating agency response to public requests for access to records. The designation of one or more records access officers shall not be construed to prohibit officials who have in the past been authorized to make records or information available to the public from continuing to do so."

In short, I believe that the Town Board has the overall responsibility of ensuring compliance with the Freedom of Information Law and that the records access officer has the duty of coordinating responses to requests.

Section 1401.2(b) of the regulations describes the duties of a records access officer and states in part that:

"The records access Officer is responsible for assuring that agency personnel...

(3) Upon locating the records, take one of the following actions:
(i) make records promptly available for inspection; or
(ii) deny access to the records in whole or in part and explain in writing the reasons therefor.
(4) Upon request for copies of records:
(i) make a copy available upon payment or offer to pay established fees, if any; or
(ii) permit the requester to copy those records...”

Based on the foregoing, again, the records access officer must "coordinate" an agency's response to requests. Therefore, I believe that when an official receives a request, he or she, in accordance with the direction provided by the records access officer, must respond in a manner consistent with the Freedom of Information Law or forward the request to the records access officer.

Next, when a record is available in its entirety under the Freedom of Information Law, any person has the right to inspect the record at no charge. However, as suggested earlier, there are often situations in which some aspects of a record, but not the entire record, may properly be withheld in accordance with the ground for denial appearing in §87(2). In that event, I do not believe that an applicant would have the right to inspect the record. In order to obtain the accessible information, upon payment of the established fee, I believe that the agency would be obliged to disclose those portions of the records after having made appropriate deletions from a copy of the record.

With respect to fees for copies of records, §87(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Law states:

"Each agency shall promulgate rules and regulations in conformance with this article...and pursuant to such general rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the committee on open government in conformity with the provisions of this article, pertaining to the availability of records and procedures to be followed, including, but not limited to...

(iii) the fees for copies of records which shall not exceed twenty-five cents per photocopy not in excess of nine by fourteen inches, or the actual cost of reproducing any other record, except when a different fee is otherwise prescribed by statute."

The regulations promulgated by the Committee state in relevant part that:

"Except when a different fee is otherwise prescribed by statute:

(a) There shall be no fee charged for the following:
(1) inspection of records;
(2) search for records; or
(3) any certification pursuant to this Part" (21 NYCRR section 1401.8).

As such, the Committee's regulations specify that no fee may be charged for personnel time, for inspection of or search for records, except as otherwise prescribed by statute. In the context of the situation to which you referred, if the Town was required to pay a private entity to reproduce the tapes, the charges that it paid would be included in its actual cost. In that circumstance, I believe that you could be charged accordingly.

Lastly, although compliance with the Freedom of Information Law involves the use of public employees' time, the Court of Appeals has found that the Law is not intended to be given effect "on a cost-accounting basis", but rather that "Meeting the public's legitimate right of access to information concerning government is fulfillment of a governmental obligation, not the gift of, or waste of, public funds" [Doolan v. BOCES, 48 NY 2d 341, 347 (1979)].

I hope that I have been of assistance.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: Jillian Guthman