Delaware Supreme Court Rules Delaware State Police Must Make Records Available to Public

Wilmington, DE— The Supreme Court of Delaware ruled in favor of the ACLU of Delaware (ACLU-DE) on behalf of Robert Vanella, the managing editor of The Delaware Call, who previously requested information from the Delaware State Police (DSP) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ruling states that DSP is required to release records identifying their former officers and demographic information of their current officers. The ruling also held that DSP failed to justify their refusal to disclose their officers’ former employment history, and that DSP will likely need to disclose such information in the near future.

The case was initially filed in March 2024 in Delaware Superior Court in response to DSP’s failure to supply public records about its employees to Vanella, whose independent news media group covers Delaware issues including policing. Vanella sought basic information about officers employed by DSP, including ranks, salaries, and demographics. The Superior Court agreed that DSP must disclose their current officers’ names, ranks, and salaries. However, the ACLU-DE appealed the Superior Court’s decision because it did not require the disclosure of officers’ employment history or individualized demographic information. The Supreme Court has now reversed the Superior Court’s decision on those points.

“This is a victory for press freedom and public transparency. For far too long, the police refused to share the most basic information publicly based on dubious legal reasoning", said Rob Vanella, managing editor of the Delaware Call. "With the help of ACLU-DE, we’ve demonstrated our right to this information. Rest assured, we will be demanding even more of it.”

“This decision strengthens public access to information in Delaware,” said ACLU-DE Staff Attorney Jared Silberglied. “The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that law enforcement have a duty to provide basic information about their operations to the public and cannot hide behind a series of narrow exceptions to FOIA’s general requirement of transparency.”