NY Court of Appeals Rules RPD Must Release Police Misconduct Records

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that misconduct records of law enforcement officers are subject to public disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), even if complaints are not deemed substantiated.

The decision upholds a previous ruling by the Appellate Division, which rejected the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Department’s attempt to categorically withhold records related to unsubstantiated complaints, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The case stemmed from a Freedom of Information Law request by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) for all civilian complaints against Rochester police officers dating back to 2000, regardless of outcome. After city officials refused full disclosure, NYCLU filed a lawsuit seeking access to the documents.

The court ruled that while FOIL’s personal privacy exemption remains intact, it does not justify a blanket refusal to release records of unsubstantiated complaints. Agencies must review records individually and determine if specific justifications exist for redaction.

The decision is a major affirmation of the state legislature’s 2020 repeal of Civil Rights Law Section 50-a, which had previously shielded police misconduct records from public view. That repeal came amid national protests over police accountability following the killing of George Floyd.

“The 2020 amendments were intended to bring greater transparency to law enforcement disciplinary processes,” wrote Judge Cannataro in the opinion. “Blanket exemptions for certain records contradict FOIL’s policy of open government.”

Under the ruling, law enforcement agencies must evaluate each record on a case-by-case basis, redacting only where necessary to prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The City of Rochester has been ordered to comply with this process.

The ruling is expected to have statewide implications, ensuring broader public access to police misconduct records while still allowing for limited redactions in cases where privacy concerns are valid.

Supporters of the ruling praised the decision as a victory for transparency and accountability in policing.

“We agree with the Court of Appeals' decision affirming that Rochester Police Department misconduct records are public, regardless of substantiation. Transparency is a cornerstone of accountability, and this ruling ensures that the public has access to critical information about law enforcement conduct,” said Dr. Lesli Myers-Small, Executive Director of the Police Accountability Board (PAB). “This decision strengthens our ability to investigate patterns of misconduct, call for necessary reforms, and advocate for policies that build public trust.”

PAB Board Chair Larry Knox also commended the decision, stating, “By ensuring these records are available, we empower our community with the information needed to drive meaningful change. We remain committed to advocating for policies that promote oversight, fairness, and trust between law enforcement and the people they serve. This ruling is a victory for transparency, and we look forward to continuing our work to ensure that access to these records leads to real reform.”

“The high court’s decision makes clear that the City of Rochester has been withholding police conduct records in clear violation of well-established law,” said T. Andrew Brown, Esq., External Counsel for PAB and Managing Partner at Brown Hutchinson LLP. “The people of Rochester have long called for greater police transparency, the importance of which is clearly demonstrated by the ruling.”

Some elected officials also expressed support for the court’s decision. “We applaud the New York Court of Appeals' decision affirming that all RPD disciplinary records, including complaints that RPD found to be unsubstantiated, cannot be categorically withheld from the public,” said Rochester City Council Members Stanley Martin, Mary Lupien, and Kimberly Smith in a joint statement. “With broader access to police disciplinary records, the PAB can conduct stronger investigations into misconduct, review patterns and practices, and most importantly, effectively serve Rochester residents.”

While the New York State Court of Appeals' decision has been lauded by transparency advocates, it has also faced opposition from police unions and departments. Critics argue that releasing unsubstantiated complaints could unfairly damage officers' reputations and careers.

The state's largest police union contended that misconduct records predating the 2020 repeal of Section 50-a should remain sealed, asserting that the repeal was not intended to apply retroactively. They expressed concerns that disclosing these records could lead to misinterpretations and unjust consequences for officers.

Additionally, unions have argued that the transparency law could unfairly taint the reputations of police officers, affecting their future employment.

Despite these objections, the court maintained that transparency and public access to police disciplinary records are paramount.

The ruling requires agencies to justify any redactions with a “particularized and specific justification” to prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy, ensuring that transparency does not come at the expense of individual rights.