The Virginia FOIA Opinion Archive

(optional)

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 medium is used by the public body in the regular course of business.

FOI Advisory Council Opinion AO-01-24

Discusses the circumstances under which a pro se petitioner becomes eligible to obtain reimbursement of attorney fees after hiring an attorney to represent the petitioner in a FOIA matter or during the appeal process. A court would have to determine that a petitioner's rights and privileges were denied in violation of law, that the petitioner had substantially prevailed on the merits of his case, and that there were no special circumstances that would make the awarding of attorney fees and costs unjust. The court would have to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs that were incurred by a petitioner in the litigation proceedings and award a reimbursement amount
 

Blackstock v. VDOT (circuit court)

A report prepared by the VDOT Assurance and Compliance Office looking into allegations of an improper hiring decision should not have been redacted under the personnel exemption, but it could be withheld under an exemption for internal investigations, 2.2-3705.3(7).

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 report's release.

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 category of withheld records, the specific Code section that authorizes the withholding of the records. Considering the policy of FOIA and the legal duties it imposes, there is a presumption of good faith that a custodian of records will obey the law in carrying out their duties by searching for and providing all records as requested unless the records are exempt or prohibited from release. FOIA is intended to be a non-adversarial process for obtaining information.

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 are possessed by another public body in the transaction of public business. Applying FOIA's narrow construction rule for exemptions, the working papers and correspondence exemption, subdivision 2 of § 2.2-3705.7, may only be used by those listed in the exemption itself. While the "Office of the Governor" is listed in the exemption, "Governor-elect" is not and therefore, a Governor-elect may not use the working papers and correspondence exemption.

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.

Gloss v. Wheeler (Supreme Court)

Community forum meeting that 5 members of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors attended and discussed police response to the George Floyd protests should have been open to the public under FOIA because it discussed "public business." The majority and dissenting opinions discuss the contours of "public business."

Suffolk City School Board v. Wahlstrom (Supreme Court)

The Virginia Supreme Court rules that the public must be able to physically attend a meeting. It also confirms that an injunction can be issued under FOIA without a finding of willful or knowing conduct, and without going through the usual steps for granting injunctive relief in other contexts.

Berry v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court of Virginia voids a revamped zoning ordinance vote that was taken in the first year of the pandemic because the board voted on it in an electronic meeting, but neither FOIA, the county's continuity of government ordinance nor an amendment made to the 2020 budget allowed for votes on matters that are not somehow time-sensitive.

Hawkins v. South Hill (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court of Virginia interprets the personnel exemption and imposes guardrails on governments from applying it broadly.

Daily Press v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court)

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled there is a presumptive right of access by the public to bond hearings. A Newport News circuit court judge erred by closing a bond hearing for a police officer accused of second-degree murder.

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 declare a maximum amount. In such situations, public bodies are encouraged to communicate the factual basis for the estimate and seek to reach an agreement with the requester on the production of records, which may include agreed limits on the amount of time and money to
be expended.

Courthouse News Service v. Hade (federal district court)

The Virginia Officer of the Court Remote Access electronic case file system of circuit courts maintained by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia does not violate the First Amendment rights of access to court records, even though it is limited to use by Virginia-licensed attorneys, their staff and related government officials and prohibits distribution of any records by those with access. The public and the press must visit each individual courthouse for copies of case files.

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 at under $200.

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 a "threat" and would not process any more of the citizen's requests. (Plus, additional issues on redactions, post-litigation production of records, reasonableness of FOIA charges and attorney fees.)

Attorney General Opinion 22-013

A local Board of Zoning Appeals cannot discreetly disclose the existence of reconsideration options to only a limited and subjective group of denied applicants because the existence of any reconsideration options would be considered open to the public under FOIA.

In Re: Honorable Adrianne L. Bennett (SCOVA)

In Re: Honorable Adrianne L. Bennett
The Virginia Supreme Court rules, 4-2, that the exhibits a judge filed in the Supreme Court along with a petition for mandamus should remain under seal, though the rest of the papers filed in the case, and the order sealing all the files should be unsealed. (The dissent reveals that the reason the mandamus was filed was because the judge wanted the Supreme Court to reinstate her to the bench after the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission suspended her.)

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 (texts) were still in the possession of the CIty, even in deleted form, I believe that the City would still have the obligation and duty to retrieve (recover) them. To me it is no different than if paper records were torn up and thown in a trashcan but had not been taken out to the garbage yet."

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.
 

AG informal opinion on OCRA

An assistant AG offered an informal opinion to the Prince William Circut Court clerk that nothing in the statutes governing remote access to non-confidential court files barred clerks from granting such access to the press.

CNS v. Schaefer (4th Circuit)

In ruling in favor of Courthouse News Service, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 24, 2021, that the clerks of the Norfolk and Prince William County circuit courts violated the press' First Amendment rights by delaying access to newly filed civil complaints.

Pages