Communications Between New Rochelle Police Department and ICE, Internal FOIL Handling Records, FOIL Processing Certifications, and Internal Discussions Pertaining to Prior FOIL Requests

Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report
Email: Jordan@Lassiter.eu

February 19, 2025

To: Law Department of the City of New Rochelle
New Rochelle City Hall
515 North Avenue
New Rochelle, NY 10801

Subject: Expanded FOIL Request – Communications Between New Rochelle Police Department and ICE, Internal FOIL Handling Records, FOIL Processing Certifications, and Internal Discussions Pertaining to Prior FOIL Requests

To Whom It May Concern,

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law §§ 84-90, I hereby submit this expanded request for records related to the New Rochelle Police Department’s (NRPD) interactions with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), internal handling of FOIL requests concerning this subject, FOIL processing procedures and employee certifications, and internal communications regarding my prior FOIL request.

This request supplements my previous FOIL request, currently under appeal. While that appeal is pending, I seek additional documentation to understand:
1. The full scope of NRPD’s communications with ICE, including policy discussions, operational cooperation, and legal directives.
2. NRPD’s internal handling of public records requests related to ICE, including any coordination that may have influenced the FOIL response process.
3. Documentation of FOIL handling procedures, tracking of FOIL requests, and certifications or training of employees responsible for processing FOIL requests.
4. Internal communications, including emails, memos, and metadata, regarding my prior FOIL request, involving NRPD, ICE, legal counsel, or other relevant parties.

Requested Records

I request access to all responsive records, including but not limited to:

1. Communications Between NRPD and ICE

All emails, letters, memos, reports, meeting notes, text messages, chat logs, attachments, and other forms of correspondence exchanged between NRPD and ICE from January 1, 2020, to the present, including:
• Policy discussions regarding cooperation between NRPD and ICE.
• Detainer requests, notifications, and NRPD’s policies on detainer compliance.
• Joint actions, task forces, information-sharing programs, or investigative efforts related to immigration enforcement.
• Agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), funding arrangements, or grants between NRPD and ICE concerning immigration enforcement or related public safety efforts.
• Legal guidance or directives provided by ICE to NRPD regarding local-federal collaboration on immigration matters.

2. Internal NRPD Discussions on Processing FOIL Requests Related to ICE

All internal emails, memos, notes, and records reflecting discussions within NRPD and between NRPD and other city agencies or departments regarding:
• The processing of FOIL requests related to ICE communications or immigration enforcement activities.
• Instructions, training materials, or legal guidance provided to NRPD personnel on handling FOIL requests concerning ICE-related matters.
• Discussions among NRPD staff or between NRPD and the Law Department about approving, denying, or redacting information in FOIL requests related to ICE.
• Justifications for exemptions used to withhold ICE-related records under FOIL.
• Metadata for all email and electronic communications related to FOIL processing for ICE-related requests, including sender/recipient information, timestamps, and subject lines.

3. FOIL Processing Records, Tracking Logs, and Employee Certifications

All records related to NRPD’s processing and tracking of FOIL requests, including:
• FOIL request tracking logs or databases maintained by NRPD from January 1, 2020, to the present, detailing:
• Request numbers, dates of receipt, processing statuses, assigned personnel, response deadlines, and resolution statuses (granted, denied, or pending).
• Extensions requested for FOIL responses and their justifications.
• Internal policies, standard operating procedures, or manuals used by NRPD to process FOIL requests, including instructions on redactions, legal reviews, and response coordination.
• Employee training records, certifications, or qualifications for FOIL officers and personnel responsible for processing public records requests.
• Designations or delegations of authority for employees assigned to handle public records requests.
• Communications or audits related to FOIL compliance, delays, or procedural issues in fulfilling FOIL requests.

4. Internal Communications Regarding My Prior FOIL Request

All emails, memos, notes, and metadata related to internal NRPD discussions regarding my prior FOIL request, including:
• Correspondence between NRPD, ICE, or legal counsel concerning my FOIL request and its processing.
• Internal discussions on whether or how to respond to my FOIL request.
• Emails or messages between NRPD staff and legal counsel discussing FOIL exemptions, withholding strategies, or potential legal risks related to my request.
• Directives from NRPD officials, the Law Department, or other agencies regarding the handling of my request.
• Metadata for all emails related to my FOIL request, including sender/recipient information, timestamps, and subject lines.

Legal Basis for Disclosure

New York’s FOIL operates under a presumption of access, meaning all government records are accessible unless a specific exemption applies. The agency bears the burden of proving that a record falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access. Conclusory assertions are insufficient to deny access. 

1. Communications with ICE Are Not Exempt Under § 87(2)(g)
• The inter-agency or intra-agency exemption does not apply to external communications with federal agencies like ICE. 
• Courts have ruled that communications between state and federal agencies are not protected under inter-agency exemptions. 

2. Internal FOIL Processing Records Are Subject to Disclosure
• Records detailing how an agency processes a FOIL request must be disclosed unless they contain privileged legal advice. 
• Agencies cannot claim exemption for deliberations on responding to FOIL requests unless they meet strict attorney-client privilege standards.

3. FOIL Processing Logs, Employee Certifications, and Tracking Data Are Public Records
• Records related to the internal processing and tracking of FOIL requests do not fall under any valid exemption.
• FOIL officers’ training and certification records are public records and must be disclosed upon request.

4. Internal Discussions Regarding My FOIL Request Must Be Released
• Internal discussions about whether to approve, deny, or delay a FOIL request must be disclosed unless they fall strictly under attorney-client privilege. 

Preservation of Records & Consequences for Non-Compliance

Given my ongoing appeal regarding a related FOIL request, I formally demand that all responsive records be preserved while this request and appeal are active.
• Any destruction, alteration, or deletion of records subject to FOIL review may constitute a violation of state law.
• See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding that agencies must preserve all records potentially subject to disclosure).
• Under Public Officers Law § 89(8), willful non-compliance or bad-faith denials could result in judicial intervention and legal penalties.

Furthermore, I am prepared to initiate an Article 78 proceeding if necessary to compel compliance with FOIL. Courts have ruled in favor of requesters where agencies engaged in unreasonable delays or improper denials.
• See Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 103 A.D.3d 495 (1st Dep’t 2013) (agencies may not improperly delay or refuse to provide access to public records).
• See Matter of Madeiros v. New York State Educ. Dept., 30 N.Y.3d 67 (2017) (holding that agencies must provide sufficiently detailed explanations for FOIL denials or risk court intervention).

If this FOIL request is improperly denied, I reserve all legal remedies available to enforce compliance, including seeking judicial review under Article 78 and requesting attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with Matter of Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr. v. Signor, 5 N.Y.3d 435 (2005).

Fee Waiver Request

I request a waiver of all fees associated with this request, as disclosure serves the public interest and is not for commercial use.
• Under Matter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department, 4 N.Y.3d 477 (2005), fee waivers are appropriate when the requested information enhances public knowledge on government operations.
• If a fee waiver is denied, I agree to pay up to $100 for processing fees. Please notify me in advance if costs exceed this amount.

Response Format & Timeline

Please provide the requested records in electronic format whenever possible. Under Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a), I expect:
1. Acknowledgment of receipt within five business days.
2. An estimated timeline for completion.
3. A clear legal explanation for any redactions or denials, citing case law as required under FOIL.

All responses should be provided via the MuckRock platform for tracking purposes and CC my personal email at Jordan@Lassiter.eu.

Conclusion & Next Steps

This request expands upon my previous FOIL request while reinforcing transparency requirements regarding:
1. NRPD’s broader engagement with ICE, including written agreements, operational cooperation, and compliance policies.
2. Internal deliberations regarding FOIL requests concerning ICE, ensuring that FOIL processing procedures are lawful and not influenced by external pressures.
3. The integrity of FOIL processing at NRPD, including proper record-keeping, tracking, and certifications of employees responsible for handling public records requests.

Given well-established case law supporting disclosure, I expect full compliance with this request. If records are withheld, I demand a detailed legal justification citing specific exemptions and case law.

If NRPD fails to comply with its obligations under FOIL, I will consider filing an Article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure, seeking judicial enforcement and attorneys’ fees if necessary.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report

Answered in appeal