SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X In the Matter of, : : NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, : : : Petitioner, : : -against: : RAMAPO POLICE DEPARTMENT, : : Respondent, : : For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 : of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X Index No. VERIFIED PETITION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Policing in Ramapo has sparked considerable community interest in recent years, particularly following allegations that the Ramapo Police Department (“the Department” or “Respondent”) improperly held four Black parole officers at gunpoint during a routine traffic stop in 2014.1 2. In response to this controversy and in a general effort to understand how the Department functions, the New York Civil Liberties Union (“the NYCLU” or “Petitioner”) submitted a multi-faceted request for records to the Department pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) in June 2015. The request sought policies and data on a variety of policing issues, such as using force, conducting stops and temporary detentions, and disciplining officers. 1 See e.g. Laura Ly, Four Black Parole Officers File Civil Suit Against White Police Officers, CNN.com [May 6, 2015], available at http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/us/new-york-parole-officers-police-officers/. 3. The Department responded to the request and subsequent appeals by flouting its obligations under FOIL: relevant to this action, it provided mere conclusory statements invoking FOIL’s safety exemption to justify redacting significant portions of five official department policies on possessing weapons, discharging firearms, using force, disciplining officers, and stopping vehicles, even though this information falls outside the law’s narrow exemptions to disclosure. Police departments around the state and nation routinely disclose un-redacted versions of similar policies. 4. This Article 78 proceeding seeks to vindicate the right of the public to learn about the Ramapo Police Department’s policies and practices, particularly those involving the use of force against the public. Having exhausted its administrative remedies, the NYCLU now seeks judicial relief to compel the Department to comply with its legal obligation to produce unredacted versions of the following General Orders: G.O. No. 111 (Weapons, Ammunition, and Tools); G.O. No. 210 (Use of Force); G.O. No. 211 (Firearms Discharge); G.O. No. 221 (Disciplinary System); and G.O. No. 311 (Traffic Stops). VENUE 5. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 7804(b) and 506(b), venue in this proceeding lies in Rockland County, in the judicial district in which the Respondent took the action challenged here and where the office of the Respondent is located. PARTIES 6. Petitioner the NYCLU is a not-for-profit corporation that seeks to defend civil rights and civil liberties on behalf of individuals who have experienced injustice and to promote government transparency. For over sixty years, the NYCLU has led public 2 advocacy campaigns and litigated on behalf of New Yorkers to demand government accountability. 7. Respondent the Ramapo Police Department is a law enforcement agency in Ramapo, New York, and is subject to Article 6 of the New York Public Officers Law. FACTS 8. On June 2, 2015, the NYCLU submitted a FOIL request to the Ramapo Police Department seeking a variety of policies, forms, training materials, and data (“the Request”). The Request’s 39 items addressed the following topics: using force; stopping or temporarily detaining people; enforcing three non-criminal offenses; receiving and investigating complaints of alleged misconduct; purchasing and utilizing surveillance technologies; maintaining data on demographic information about officers; and implementing policies and conducting trainings on bias-based policing, equal employment opportunity, strip searches, asset forfeiture, de-escalation strategies and tactics, and interactions between officers and people with disabilities and language minorities. 9. On August 5, 2015, the NYCLU received an incomplete response from the Department that did not provide any directions on how to appeal the Department’s determination. This response included a CD-ROM that contained PDF files of 106 General Orders, many fully or partially redacted, with no indication to which, if any, of the NYCLU’s requests the orders responded. Those files included the five orders involved in this action. The Department provided no explanations for any of the redactions. 10. On August 18, 2015, the NYCLU submitted an administrative appeal regarding the August 5 response to the Department’s FOIL Appeals Officer. The appeal 3 argued, among other things, that the Department neither explained its redactions nor cited a single FOIL exemption to justify them. 11. On October 6, 2015, counsel for the Department emailed counsel for the NYCLU to indicate that the Department planned to supply additional materials responsive to the initial Request and stating that, after “a second response from the Town Clerk,” the NYCLU would have the opportunity to appeal any remaining issues along with “items that were addressed in [the] original appeal.” 12. On October 26, 2015, the NYCLU received the Department’s second response, which addressed some of the NYCLU’s August 18 appeal and provided some additional documents. Among other determinations, the Department removed some redactions but denied the NYCLU’s request for un-redacted versions of the General Orders responsive to the initial FOIL request. The Department justified all of its remaining redactions by simply referencing sections 87 [2] [e] [iv] and 87 [2] [f] of the Public Officers Law, two FOIL exemptions linked to non-routine police procedures and public safety, respectively. 13. On December 14, 2015, the NYCLU accepted the Department’s invitation to submit a second administrative appeal (“the December 14 appeal”) addressing all of the materials produced to that point. The appeal stated clearly that “by sending this letter we do not waive our right to proceed to litigation under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.” Among other issues, the appeal argued that the Department had improperly redacted its policies, including the five policies involved in this action, without providing specific and particularized justifications. 4 14. On January 14, 2016, the NYCLU received the Department’s response to the December 14 appeal. Among other determinations, the Department denied the NYCLU’s request to remove redactions on the general orders it produced. The Department argued in conclusory terms that the public safety exemption to FOIL, section 87 [2] [f] of the Public Officers Law, applied to each of these policies. 15. On March 28 and 29, 2016, in an attempt to resolve the matter without resorting to litigation, the NYCLU emailed the Department’s counsel to state that the NYCLU planned to file an Article 78 petition unless the Department produced unredacted copies of the five policies most relevant to the NYCLU’s request: G.O. No. 111 (Weapons, Ammunition, and Tools); G.O. No. 210 (Use of Force); G.O. No. 211 (Firearms Discharge); G.O. No. 221 (Disciplinary System); and G.O. No. 311 (Traffic Stops). The NYCLU also included copies of six similar policies released in un-redacted form by other police departments around the state. 16. On April 8, 2016, the Department’s counsel provided new versions of the requested policies but only removed a small fraction of the disputed redactions. 17. The NYCLU now seeks relief through judicial intervention to obtain un- redacted versions of these five General Orders and to vindicate the public’s right to know about official policies that determine how the Department uses force, temporarily detains people, and disciplines officers. CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 78 18. Article 78 is the appropriate method for review of agency determinations concerning FOIL requests. 19. The Petitioner has a clear right to the requested records. 5 20. The Respondent has not properly asserted any statutory exemptions and no exemption appears to apply. 21. The Respondent’s obligation under FOIL to produce documents and to respond to requests with particularized, specific reasons for any denials is mandatory, not discretionary. 22. The Petitioner exhausted its administrative remedies with the Respondent when the Respondent denied the Petitioner’s appeal on January 14, 2016. The Petitioner has no other remedy at law. 23. This Petition is timely under C.P.L.R. § 217 as it is filed within four months of the Respondent’s denial of the administrative appeal. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Petitioner seeks judgment: 1) Pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 7806, directing the Respondent to comply with its duty under FOIL and to disclose un-redacted versions of the records sought by the Petitioner: G.O. No. 111 (Weapons, Ammunition, and Tools); G.O. No. 210 (Use of Force); G.O. No. 211 (Firearms Discharge); G.O. No. 221 (Disciplinary System); and G.O. No. 311 (Traffic Stops); 2) Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs as allowed under New York Public Officers Law § 89; and 3) Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 6 Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Robert Hodgson Sam Thypin-Bermeo Arthur Eisenberg NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, New York 10004 Tel: (212) 607-3300 Fax: (212) 607-3318 rhodgson@nyclu.org Counsel for Petitioner Dated: May 10, 2016 New York, New York 7