CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a Nonprofit Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., Defendants.
No. CV 75--3550--F.
United States District Court,
C.D. California.
April 2, 1976.
Suit was instituted pursuant to Freedom of Information Act to require
disclosure of confidential information supplied to Drug Enforcement Agency by
foreign, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The District Court,
Ferguson, J., held that word 'source,' within provision of Act excluding from
disclosure requirements confidential information furnished by a confidential
source compiled in course of a criminal investigation, extends to any
confidential source, including law enforcement agencies, and that criminal
investigatory records, compiled for law enforcement purposes and given under
conditions of confidentiality, were exempt from disclosure requirements.
Judgment for defendants.
[1] RECORDS
It is not the responsibility of the court under the Freedom of Information Act
to balance equities and determine whether its subjective appreciation of the
relevant policies dictates disclosure. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552.
[2] RECORDS
The Freedom of Information Act does not grant the courts general supervisory
power to control the performance of executive agencies. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552.
[3] RECORDS
The judicial task under the Freedom of Information Act is to defend the intent
of Congress and to apply it to the documents. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552.
[4] RECORDS
Word "source," within provision of Freedom of Information Act excluding from
disclosure requirements confidential information furnished by a confidential
source compiled in course of a criminal investigation, does not refer
exclusively to people, but extends to any confidential source, including law
enforcement agencies. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(7).
[5] RECORDS
In enacting provision of Freedom of Information Act excluding from disclosure
requirements confidential information furnished by a confidential source
compiled in course of a criminal investigation, Congress did not intend to
throw open confidential files of law enforcement agencies to general public.
5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(7).
[6] RECORDS
Provision of Freedom of Information Act excluding from disclosure requirements
confidential information furnished by a confidential source compiled in course
of a criminal investigation is applicable to law enforcement agency sources.
5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(7).
[7] RECORDS
Criminal investigatory records, compiled for law enforcement purposes and given
under conditions of confidentiality, were exempt from disclosure requirements
of Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(7).
[8] FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE
District court determined to retain jurisdiction in suit brought pursuant to
Freedom of Information Act for purpose of determining which of the parties had
"substantially prevailed" and to determine awards of costs and attorneys'
fees. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(7).
[8] RECORDS
District court determined to retain jurisdiction in suit brought pursuant to
Freedom of Information Act for purpose of determining which of the parties had
"substantially prevailed" and to determine awards of costs and attorneys'
fees. 5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(7).
*1298 Joel Kreiner, Los Angeles, Cal., Leonard Unger, Levine & Krom,
Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiff.
William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty.,
Chief, Civil Div., James Stotter II, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for
defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FERGUSON, District Judge.
This case raises the question of whether the 1974 amendments to the Freedom of
Information Act permit non-disclosure of confidential information supplied to
the Drug Enforcement Agency by foreign, state, and local law enforcement
agencies.
The government defendants produced a series of witnesses who testified that
information provided from one law enforcement agency to another law enforcement
agency is given on the understanding that it will not be revealed to members of
the general public without the prior approval of the providing source. The
witnesses testified that foreign, state, and local law enforcement agencies
would be reluctant to disclose information to any federal agency if the Freedom
of Information Act jeopardized the confidentiality of their information. Among
the witnesses were Chief Rocky Pomerance, the Chief of Police of Miami Beach,
Florida, and immediate past president of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police; David C. Dilley, Commander, Metropolitan Police and
Intelligence *1299 Branch, Scotland Yard, London, England; and Francois Le
Mouel, Controller General, French National Police Chief, French Bureau of
Narcotics, Paris, France.
The plaintiff Church of Scientology contends that the Congress intended that
confidential information provided by law enforcement agencies must be produced
under the Act. The plaintiff argues that since it does not condone or tolerate
the use of drugs, since it has promoted programs which combat the use of drugs,
and since it is not involved in drug or narcotic trafficking, no valid
governmental interest supports non-disclosure. Although the government does not
contest the fact that the plaintiff is an opponent of drug trafficking, it
contends that the Act, nonetheless, permits non-disclosure. The Government is
correct.
Background
1. On December 4, 1974 the Church of Scientology of California filed an action
pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. s
552, naming the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General of
the United States, and the Drug Enforcement Administration as defendants.
2. Jurisdiction was founded on 5 U.S.C. s 552(a)(3) on the ground that the
action was one to enjoin an agency from withholding agency records and to order
the production of agency records alleged to have been improperly withheld.
3. Since the plaintiff maintains its principal place of business in the
Central District of California, venue in this district was properly based upon
5 U.S.C. s 552(a)(3).
4. The plaintiff has exhausted its administrative remedies under 5 U.S.C. s
552 and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the defendant Department of
Justice.
5. The parties stipulated that the amendments to the Freedom of Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. s 552(b), which became effective on February 19, 1975, were to be
deemed effective and fully applicable to this action.
6. The Drug Enforcement Agency at various times released numerous documents to
the plaintiff [FN1] but a dispute over the propriety of the Agency's decision
to withhold fifteen documents in their entirety and portions of nine other
documents necessitated a trial on January 7--9, 1976, and an in camera hearing
on January 12, 1976.
FN1. The parties dispute as to why these documents were released. The
question may be of importance in determining the assessment of litigation
costs and the propriety of an award of attorneys' fees to the plaintiff.
The court will retain jurisdiction to determine these questions in
subsequent proceedings.
7. The defendants claim multiple exemptions under 5 U.S.C. s 552(b) with
respect to each of the fifteen documents that were wholly withheld. They invoke
the (b)(7)(C) [FN2] and (b)(7)(D) [FN3] exemptions with respect to all fifteen
documents, the (b)(7)(A) [FN4] exemption with respect to ten of the documents,
the (b)(7)(F) [FN5] exemption with respect to five of the documents, the
(b)(2) [FN6] exemption with respect to four of the documents, the (b)(5) [FN7]
exemption with respect to two of *1300 the documents, and the (b)(1) [FN8]
exemption with respect to one of the documents.
FN2. 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(7) exempts: 'investigatory records compiled for
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of
such records would (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) deprive
a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C)
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) disclose the
identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by
a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal
investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security
intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the
confidential source, (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures,
or (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel.'
FN3. See footnote 2.
FN4. See footnote 2.
FN5. See footnote 2.
FN6. 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(2) exempts matters 'related solely to the
internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.'
FN7. 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(5) exempts matters that are 'inter-agency or
intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to
a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.'
FN8. 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(1) exempts matters 'specifically authorized
under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or foreign policy . . . and are in fact
properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.'
8. With respect to the nine documents in which partial excisions were made,
the defendants contend that the (b)(7)(C) [FN9] and (b)(7)(D) [FN10] exemptions
apply to material in each of the nine documents, the (b)(7)(F) [FN11] and
(b)(2) [FN12] exempti