The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., may have kept an unofficial watchlist of critics who regularly submitted information requests, but such a policy would not have had an adverse impact, attorneys for the district argue.
D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine urged a federal judge to toss a lawsuit alleging the MPD maintains a watchlist of department critics whose requests for information are subjected to heightened scrutiny, saying any instances of delayed or denied requests were “mere isolated lapses” and show no “pattern of adverse treatment.”
“The fact that certain FOIA requests — like ones requesting voluminous data related to high-profile issues — may be treated differently is, again, not evidence of an intent to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint or content,” Racine wrote in his response filed Friday. “Indeed, different procedures and responses may be appropriate when the FOIA requests arise from ‘sharply contrasting circumstances.’”
DC POLICE KEPT ‘WATCHLIST’ TO THWART INFORMATION REQUESTS, LAWSUIT SAYS
The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Amy Phillips on Feb. 3, argues the department set aside Freedom of Information Act requests from certain people to undergo “special review by high-ranking officials.” Once on the list, she argued those seeking information are more likely to face hurdles the general public can bypass, such as charges for certain documents that others get for free, delayed information requests, or outright rejections.
Phillips, who claims to be on the list herself, said she was informed of the unofficial watchlist in 2020 by Vendette Parker, a former inspector at the MPD.
Although there may be differences in how some requests are handled, Racine wrote that they did not reveal a pattern “of improperly handling FOIA requests based on the requestor’s viewpoint or the content of the request.” As a result, the attorney general said the examples provided by Phillips failed to prove an unofficial watchlist policy violated her First Amendment rights.
“Nothing in plaintiff’s allegations regarding the policy even suggests that the watchlist policy procedures violate FOIA requirements,” he wrote. “Thus, plaintiff has failed to allege that any policy involved improper application of FOIA requirements.”
In her lawsuit, Phillips alleged Parker was instructed to notify chief MPD officers whenever she received FOIA requests from certain people who could use the information to embarrass the department. Parker would send weekly emails highlighting these requests before fulfilling them.
“Providing information up the chain of command to ensure that the Chief of Police is prepared to communicate to the press about high profile matters or issues that may be the subject of future litigation is a sensible policy,” Racine argued. “MPD has a substantial government interest in providing accurate information to the public, both for its own sake and for the sake of fostering public confidence in the police force.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
However, Phillips’s attorneys argue the lawsuit doesn’t just allege the existence of a critics watchlist but also the implications that come along with it.
“We don’t just allege that they’re delaying so that they have a better and sometimes even more appropriate response,” said Charlie Gerstein, Phillips’s attorney, according to DCist. “Instead, we allege that they’re delaying for the purpose of slowing down public criticism, and we have many occasions in the complaint which we allege that information was improperly withheld.”
Gerstein told the outlet he plans to file a response urging the judge not to dismiss the case, seeking an opportunity to request documents from the MPD concerning its watchlist policy.
