Maryland Prisoner Prevails in Challenge to Denial of Public Records Requests
As PLN has reported, prison and jail employees have been identified in racist or extremist groups. [See: PLN, Feb. 2022, p.40.] The problem was manifested in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, when participating members of the Oathkeepers and other white supremacist organizations included law enforcement officers. When Maryland’s Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) then denied requests for this sort of information from a state prisoner, the state Public Information Act Compliance Board ordered compliance in a ruling issued on June 30, 2023.
The prisoner, Steven Szekely, submitted a public records request on April 7, 2022, seeking: 1) the procedures in place to “detect domestic extremist, white supremacist gang member-employees”; and 2) the number of prison employees dismissed, fired or reassigned due to “their discovered membership [or] affiliation with white supremacist groups, white nationalist groups, [or] domestic extremists like Oathkeepers, Proud Boys [or] Boogaloos.” DPSCS responded by providing Szekely with a copy of the state’s employment application but denied the second part of his request, citing Md. Code. Ann. Gen. Prov. § 4-351 and § 4-311. The latter statute, DPSCS said, exempted personnel records from disclosure.
Previously, in September 2020, Szekley submitted a records request to DPSCS seeking photocopies of weapons recovered at Western Correctional Institution (WCI) over a 28-month period, plus copies of certain items concerning contraband recovered at WCI during the same time period. His request was denied; again prison officials cited § 4-351, claiming those records had been “compiled as part of an investigation for a correctional purpose” and disclosure would “compromise security at the institution.”
When Szekely contacted the Office of the Public Access Ombudsman regarding the denials, he was unable to resolve the dispute. But DPSCS issued a supplemental response regarding procedures for detection of employees who were members of extremist groups. Those procedures were set forth in two executive directives, but they were not produced because they concerned “intelligence information or security procedures.”
Szekely then appealed to the Board, which contacted DPSCS three times without response. So the case was considered based on the facts in the record. The Board said that although a public agency may deny records requests under § 4-351, it “must first demonstrate that the records are part of an ‘investigatory file’ that the agency has compiled ... or that the records ‘contain intelligence information or security procedures’ of a qualifying agency.” A denying agency must also show that disclosure of such records is contrary to the public interest. See: Fioretti v. Maryland State Bd of Dental Examiners, 351 Md. 66 (Md. Ct. App. 1988).
The Board found DPSCS’s response to Szekely’s 2020 request was “insufficient” to meet its burden, since it provided “no evidence or information about any ‘specific relevant investigative proceeding[s]’” to justify denial. “[S]imply because an agency asserts that its files were compiled for law enforcement purposes is insufficient under the language of the [statutory] exemption,” the Board said. Denial of Szekely’s 2022 records request was “similarly lacking,” the Board continued, because prison officials “offered no explanation whatsoever” why inspection of the executive directives was contrary to the public interest, even if those records fell within the scope of § 4-3 51.
Noting that employee-related records described by Szekely in his 2022 request “would seem to fall within the scope of personnel records exempt from disclosure under § 4-311,” the Board said there was nevertheless insufficient information to make that determination, due to DPSCS’s failure to engage in the dispute resolution process. Accordingly, in its ruling, the Board ordered DPSCS to disclose records related to detection of employees who are members of extremist groups, including the executive directives identified in the agency’s supplemental response. Likewise, DPSCS must produce records responsive to Szekely’s 2020 request related to weapons and other contraband found at WCI. See: Ruling of Maryland Public Information Act Compliance Board in PIA CB 23-21 and 23-22, Steven Szekely, Complainant (June 30, 2023).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ruling of Maryland Public Information Act Compliance Board in PIA CB 23-21 and 23-22, Steven Szekely, Complainant (June 30, 2023)
| Year | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Level | Administrative Agency |