Case Detail
Case Title | DAVIS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2013cv01972 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2013-12-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2014-12-15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JOHN STELLIOS DAVIS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Davis submitted a request for the names of movie files allegedly containing illegal material that were seized from his home in 2006. The Postal Inspection Service responded that it could not locate the names of the movie files, but did locate a partial search warrant inventory list. Davis appealed, arguing the names of the movie files could be located by a computer query. The agency's chief counsel remanded the request for a further search. The agency then located the movie files, but told Davis they were being withheld under Exemption 7(F) (harm to any individual). Davis appealed the denial, which was upheld by the agency. Davis then filed suit. Complaint issues: improper withholding, creation of list of names of files instead of disclosure of file, costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [22] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service properly withheld records that might identify child victims contained on CD ROM discs taken from the residence of John Davis, who was later convicted of trafficking in child pornography. Davis, who was sentenced to 235 months, requested the names of the 16 movie files seized from his home. The USPIS located a search warrant and search warrant inventory list and released three pages after redacting them under Exemption 3 (other statutes) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The agency claimed 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d), which prohibits disclosure of names or other personal information about child victims, provided an exemption for the redactions. Davis argued that the agency could "manually print the names of each file" to avoid identifying any children. But Cooper pointed that "Davis misunderstands the nature of FOIA exemptions. USPIS' justification for withholding these documents would extend to any documents containing the same information. . .[A]ccording to USPIS' affidavitsâ€"which the Court accepts as true absent evidence to the contraryâ€"the movie titles themselves either reflect the names of the child victims or include information by which the child victims could be identified, such as their descriptions and ages." Davis also argued that "his sentence was enhanced by 5 levels because the offense allegedly involved 600 or more images, yet neither he nor his defense counsel actually viewed the images. Thus he seeks evidence to show that the CD ROM files' content did not warrant the upward adjustment." Finding Davis' claim had no bearing on his request, Cooper pointed out that "Davis' personal interest in the requested information does not amount to a public interest of such magnitude that it outweighs the individuals' substantial privacy interests. Furthermore, FOIA is not a substitute for discovery in a criminal case."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|