The NYPD runs an intelligence agency that is even more secretive, and practically as corrupt as the NSA. They even fly their own intelligence officers to the scene of terrorist attacks overseas (and interfere with real investigations). What's more, the NYPD has invented its own, extra-legal system of "classified" documents that it has unilaterally decided it doesn't have to provide to the public in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Shawn Musgrave used Muckrock sent the NYPD a FOIA request for its FOIA manual — the guidelines by which it decides whether or not it will obey the law requiring it to share its internal workings with the public who pay for them — only to have the NYPD refuse to provide it, because it is "privileged attorney-client work-product."
As Musgrave says, "Handbooks and training materials hardly qualify as 'confidential communications,' particularly when the subject matter is transparency itself."
In his appeal rejection letter, Mr. David cites two statutes that bar disclosure of attorney-client communications. He argues that the records I requested "reflect confidential communications between members of the FOIL unit and their attorneys in the context of the providing of legal advice concerning the meaning and requirements of the Freedom of Information law." He further suggests that "preparation of these records called upon attorneys to apply the skills and talents of an attorney, making these records attorney work product."
As I wrote in my appeal, I have no doubt that a team of lawyers drafted NYPD's transparency training materials and that they applied every ounce of barrister skill they possess. I hope such qualified individuals would be charged with that task. However, that a lawyer reviewed or even drafted these documents does not make them exempt from disclosure.
I haven't requested NYPD's case notes for FOIL litigation, or strategy memos for how to respond to a particular request. I'm after the handbook that delineates generally which documents to disclose to the public, and which to withhold.
Handbooks and training materials hardly qualify as "confidential communications," particularly when the subject matter is transparency itself.