Case Detail
Case Title | Lapp v. The Federal Bureau Of Investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Northern District of West Virginia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Clarksburg | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2014cv00160 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2014-09-19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2016-02-23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | District Judge Irene M. Keeley | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Eric M Lapp | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Eric Lapp, the owner of Fingerprint Solutions, a company dealing with the storage and use of fingerprints, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for a list of all public housing agencies that had submitted requests to the FBI for Originating Agency Identifiers. The agency told Lapp that it was unable to search based on the description of records he provided. Lapp appealed the denial to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the agency's decision and told Lapp he could further appeal to the Office of Government Information Services. Lapp appealed to OGIS, but that agency told him it had limited authority to act. Lapp finally filed suit. Complaint issues: Withholding not related to exemption claims, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | The Federal Bureau Of Investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Complaint attachment 10 Complaint attachment 11 Complaint attachment 12 Opinion/Order [34] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in West Virginia has ruled that the FBI properly responded to Eric Lapp's request for records concerning procedures for public housing authorities to access the FBI's fingerprint database for purposes of background checks by telling Lapp that it was unable to search for the records requested and had no obligation under FOIA to create records responsive to his request. Lapp, the owner of Fingerprint Solutions, a company specializing in acquiring, storing, and submitted fingerprints to authorized recipients, made a multi-part request to the FBI for records about access to its fingerprint database by Originating Agency Identifiers, a nine-character identifier developed by the FBI and assigned to qualified agencies to access the agency's Criminal Justice Information Services database. The agency told Lapp it had no way to search for the records. Lapp appealed to OIP, which affirmed the FBI's decision, explaining to Lapp that agencies were not required to create records to respond to a FOIA request. Lapp then appealed to OGIS. In response to OGIS's efforts, the FBI disclosed 119 pages to Lapp, which were responsive to two subparts of his request. For the records disclosed, the agency withheld ORIs under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods or techniques), claiming disclosure would might allow criminals to gain insight into how to access the FBI's fingerprint database. Lapp called the claim ludicrous, but the court agreed with the agency, noting that "the Court discounts Lapp's underestimation of the criminal element and gives deference to the declarations of FBI professionals in area over the bare conclusory assertions of Lapp. Furthermore, the Court is confounded by Lapp's assertion that, just because a criminal actor would have to jump over additional hurdles, the FBI is required to give them a boost over the first hurdle by releasing the ORIs." The court explained the sensitivity of the ORIs, indicating that "the ORIs are compiled to provide authorized users access to criminal databases at the FBI." As to whether the agency was required to compile records in response to other portions of Lapp's request, the court pointed out that "the FBI would be required to 'dig out' the answer to Lapp's questions regarding the channelers used and number of fingerprint submissions from a variety of locations, as well as requiring them to research outside the FBI. Moreover, it would require them to perform calculations relating to the number of fingerprint submissions based on accounting data inside and outside the FBI. This is beyond what the FOIA requires." Lapp also requested attorney's fees, arguing that the FBI's disclosure of the 119 pages occurred on the last day on which the agency was required to respond to his complaint. The court found Lapp had not substantially prevailed and that the FBI's disclosure of the 119 pages occurred as the result of OGIS's involvement and not because of Lapp's suit.
Issues: Request - Specificity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|