Codrea v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
239 F. Supp. 3d 128
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Codrea, Savage, and FFL Defense Research Center) submitted a FOIA request to ATF for records relating to guidance given to hearing officers in license denial/revocation matters; ATF produced 6,875 pages in rolling releases but withheld small portions of two training documents.
- The dispute narrows to four withheld pages (Bates 2199, 2223–25) from two versions of a "Lesson Plan Overview for Hearing Officer Training" (May 2001 and March 2010) that answer: (1) what evidence establishes knowledge/intentional disregard, and (2) what evidence establishes plain indifference.
- ATF withheld those answers under FOIA Exemption 7(E), asserting disclosure would reveal law‑enforcement techniques/guidance and enable licensees to evade detection of willful violations.
- Plaintiffs challenge only the applicability of Exemption 7(E) to those four pages; they argue the material is inapplicable because hearing officers are adjudicatory and disclosure would merely guide compliance.
- The court reviewed ATF declarations describing the training materials’ purpose, the law‑enforcement context of ATF licensing hearings, and the risk that examples of probative evidence would allow bad actors to destroy or conceal incriminating evidence.
- The court granted ATF summary judgment, finding the withheld material (a) was compiled for law‑enforcement purposes and (b) properly withheld under Exemption 7(E); the court also accepted ATF’s segregability showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records were "compiled for law enforcement purposes" under Exemption 7 threshold | Plaintiffs: hearing officers perform adjudicatory roles, not law‑enforcement investigations | ATF: hearings, hearing officer training, and licensing enforcement further ATF's law‑enforcement/regulatory mission | Held: Records were compiled for law enforcement purposes (ATF enforces GCA; hearing process furthers enforcement) |
| Whether withheld material discloses law‑enforcement "techniques and procedures" under Exemption 7(E) | Plaintiffs: examples of willful violations merely inform compliance; do not meaningfully reveal techniques | ATF: the withheld answers disclose specific criteria/examples used to detect willfulness and investigative/probative evidence | Held: Withheld material would disclose techniques/procedures and qualify as guidance; 7(E) prong satisfied |
| Whether disclosure would "reasonably risk circumvention of the law" under Exemption 7(E) | Plaintiffs: public guidance does not show how to evade enforcement; at most helps compliance | ATF: revealing probative examples would enable bad actors to conceal evidence, alter behavior, or destroy incriminating material | Held: Disclosure would reasonably risk circumvention; agency met the relatively low causation burden for 7(E) |
| Whether reasonably segregable non‑exempt information was released | Plaintiffs: did not meaningfully contest segregability | ATF: performed page‑by‑page review and released all reasonably segregable non‑exempt material | Held: Court accepted ATF's segregability declaration and found adequate segregability compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Sack v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir.) (explains Exemption 7(E) requires disclosure would reveal techniques/procedures and risk circumvention)
- Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (Exemption 7 protects records compiled for law‑enforcement purposes that meet one of six harms)
- Public Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. United States Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir.) (broad view of law‑enforcement purposes includes civil enforcement and preventive steps)
- FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (1982) (two‑part Exemption 7 analysis: threshold law‑enforcement purpose and demonstration of enumerated harm)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (agency need only show logically how release might increase risk that law will be violated; guidance can be covered)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir.) (disclosure need only show it might increase risk that violators escape consequences)