Case Detail
| Case Title | TAPLIN v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2012cv01815 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-11-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2013-09-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Rudolph Contreras | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | BLYTHE TAPLIN on behalf of Rogers Lacaze | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: After showing considerable sympathy to her case, Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that Blythe Taplin, an attorney for the Capital Appeals Project representing death row inmate Rogers Lacaze, failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the FBI had records on Adam Frank that would corroborate Taplin's theory that Frank committed the murders for which Lacaze was convicted. Lacaze came to the Kim Anh Vietnamese Restaurant in New Orleans with New Orleans Police Officer Antoinette Frank, who often worked an off-duty security detail at the family-owned restaurant. A shoot-out at the restaurant resulted in the death of New Orleans Police Officer Ronald Williams, who was also on security detail at the restaurant, and two family members who worked at the restaurant. Two other family members hid and survived the attack. Lacaze and Antoinette Frank were charged with murder, but tried separately. The survivors identified Lacaze at trial and prosecutors introduced other circumstantial evidence. Lacaze testified that while he went to the restaurant with Frank, she later dropped him off at his girlfriend's apartment and he played pool with his brother at a local pool hall until the early morning. However, the manager of the pool hall testified that while Lacaze's brother was there, Lacaze was not. The defense suggested that Antoinette Frank's brother, Adam, was the real murderer. Lacaze was convicted and sentenced to death. Based on evidence from local law enforcement that Adam Frank was wanted by the FBI, Taplin requested any FBI records related to Frank. The agency issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying the existence of records on Frank. Contreras noted that "if the FBI did in fact investigate Mr. Frank in relation to the Kim Anh murders, then under the general rule he is presumed to have a substantial interest in ensuring that the FBI keeps the fact of his investigation a secret." Pointing to Frank's acknowledged criminal record, including a current 65-year sentence for armed robbery, Contreras indicated that "these facts weaken the rationales supporting Mr. Frank's privacy interest in non-disclosure. . .In fact, given that Mr. Frank is, apparently, such a dangerous individual, members of the public might be surprised if the FBI did not have documents about him." He explained that "if it was publicly known that the New Orleans field office sought Mr. Frank, it follows that no added stigma would accrue in confirming that this FBI interest resulted in the creation of documents. While it is the law of this circuit that another agency's disclosure cannot altogether preclude the FBI from asserting a Glomar response, the rule does not speak to the much narrower issue of whether such a disclosure can diminish a third party's privacy interest for purposes of Exemption 7(C)." Contreras acknowledged that a prisoner's personal interest in obtaining exculpatory information did not qualify as a public interest, but he pointed out that the D.C. Circuit, in Roth v. Dept of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011), had found a public interest in disclosure of potentially relevant information in death row cases. He observed that "in light of the public's general interest in the exoneration of individuals who have been sentenced to the 'ultimate punishment,' the public interest in Mr. Lacaze's potential innocence may outweigh Mr. Frank's diminished privacy interest in the non-disclosure of FBI documents that could link him to the Kim Anh murders." Having come so far, however, Contreras concluded that Taplin had not provided sufficient evidence to show a link. He noted that "Ms. Taplin must also show that a reasonable person could believe that the FBI is withholding evidence that corroborates her theory. Ms. Taplin does not provide any evidence, or even allegations, that meet this burden. While the complaint points to documents suggesting that the FBI has some files on Adam Frank, it does not show that the agency is likely to have any that link him to the Kim Anh murders."
Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
