Background
The ACLU of Delaware submitted two requests under Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Department of Correction (DOC). The first, the “Eligible Voter Request,” sought the number of people incarcerated on a lead misdemeanor charge or on pretrial detention, along with their names, State Bureau of Identification (SBI) numbers, and incarceration dates. The ACLU wanted to identify and reach out to incarcerated individuals who might be eligible to vote. The second, the “Elderly Incarcerated Request,” sought the number of incarcerated individuals within age ranges above 60, plus the same identifying information.
DOC denied both requests. For the first, it cited a pending-litigation exemption and claimed its database could not produce the requested records. For the second, DOC provided the population numbers by age range but refused to disclose any identifying information, citing statutory protections for criminal history records and DOC case records. The Attorney General’s office upheld both denials, and the ACLU appealed to Superior Court.
The core dispute turned on two questions: whether DOC actually possessed (or could produce) records responsive to the requests, and whether statutory exemptions barred disclosure of the individual-level identifying information the ACLU sought.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed the Attorney General’s opinions in part. On the threshold question of whether DOC possessed responsive records, the court found that DOC had conceded during oral argument it could search its database by criminal statute — meaning it could identify individuals incarcerated on misdemeanor charges, even if a single-button search was unavailable. The court held that an agency cannot avoid FOIA obligations simply because its computer system lacks a convenient search function; “it would defeat the letter and spirit of FOIA” to refuse to use a database in a way that can produce the requested records. DOC was ordered to disclose the population-level data: the number of individuals incarcerated on a lead misdemeanor charge and on pretrial detention.
However, the court affirmed DOC’s refusal to disclose individual identifying information — names, SBI numbers, and incarceration dates — under 11 Del. C. Section 4322(a). That statute restricts DOC from disclosing “all other case records” obtained through the discharge of its official duties. The court found this statutory bar was materially different from FOIA-specific exemptions: it restricts what DOC itself can share, regardless of whether the same information might be publicly available elsewhere. Notably, the court also found that the pending-litigation exemption was moot because the deadline to appeal the underlying federal lawsuit had passed.
The court drew an important line: aggregate population data is not shielded by statutory protections for individual criminal records, but personally identifiable information contained in DOC’s case management system is protected from disclosure by DOC, even when similar information may be accessible through other channels like court records or public databases.
Key Takeaways
- Government agencies cannot deny FOIA requests by claiming their databases lack a convenient search function when alternative search methods exist — the spirit of FOIA requires agencies to use available tools to produce responsive records.
- Aggregate population data about incarcerated individuals (total counts by charge type or age range) is not “criminal history record information” and must be disclosed under FOIA.
- Individual identifying information held by DOC — names, SBI numbers, incarceration dates — is protected under 11 Del. C. Section 4322(a) as “case records” obtained in the discharge of official duty, even if the same information is publicly available through other sources like court proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for organizations that rely on FOIA to access government data, particularly in the criminal justice space. The ruling establishes that state agencies must make reasonable use of their existing database capabilities to respond to records requests — a principle that will likely be cited in future disputes over whether agencies have done enough to search for responsive records. At the same time, the court upheld a meaningful wall around individual inmate records held by corrections departments, distinguishing between what the public can learn from courts and what corrections agencies themselves can share.
For advocacy groups, the practical takeaway is that aggregate data is obtainable through FOIA even when individual records are not. Organizations seeking to identify specific incarcerated individuals may need to pursue alternative channels — such as court records or the VINElink database referenced during oral argument — rather than relying on FOIA requests directed at corrections agencies.