Judge temporarily halts release of Rochester police disciplinary records

A state Supreme Court ruling last week temporarily halted the release of any Rochester police officer disciplinary records through a public database.

The city of Rochester planned to publicly release a database of the files of about 120 Rochester police officers by the end of the year. State Supreme Court Justice Ann Marie Taddeo issued a temporary restraining order on Dec. 23 to stop the City from releasing records in response to a lawsuit filed two days earlier by the Rochester Police Locust Club, the union representing roughly 700 officers.

The Locust Club, in its initial filing, said it wasn't seeking to stop the release of the information. It said it was trying to delay the database to protect its members from the release of personal information that was not properly redacted.

The city announced in July that it would create an online database of the disciplinary records of Rochester Police Department officers. The move came in response to the repeal of Section 50a of New York State Civil Service Law a few weeks earlier, a law which had kept those records inaccessible to the public view for decades.

Citing an email from Interim Chief Cynthia Herriott-Sullivan, the suit said the city announced its intentions to publish the records online on Dec. 27.

Taddeo ordered the city not to release any disciplinary information while the lawsuit is pending. She scheduled a Feb. 3 hearing for city attorneys to argue whether information should be released before officers, and potentially Locust Club representatives, review it.

Court papers indicated that the union and the City agreed on a process that would allow officers to review their own records before publication and raise concerns. This process was ineffective, the Locust Club argued. That process involved a secure email link that allowed the 119 officers whose records were to be released to review them. Some officers were unable to access the documents.

It also complained that officers had only been given two and a half business days to review those records. Officers were asked to look over their own files before it was scheduled to be released to the public.

The suit sought to block the City from putting those records online "until those records are properly reviewed by the officer and ... until any mistakes or errors which are brought to [the city's] attention are addressed and corrected."

It also asked the court to determine an appropriate length of time for the review process.

When the disciplinary file of Mike Mazzeo, the union president, was released last summer filing an open-records request, it still contained his Social Security number and home address, the Locust Club revealed. 

The City shared the records on a public website after the request. That led to at least one attempt to fraudulently open a credit card account.

Just Roj, communications director for the city of Rochester, previously said the City would proceed with its plan to publicly release the records online.

"This 11th-hour attempt by the police union to keep people in the dark is without merit," Roj said in a statement. 

An unambiguously worded order handed down Tuesday in Schenectady by state Supreme Court Justice Mark Powers, denied and dismissed with prejudice a petition by the city's Public Safety Commissioner to redact parts of an officer's personnel and disciplinary records in a response to a FOIL request. Justice Powers ruled that unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct are covered by the state legislation repealing the 50a protection and should be released, but determined that an officer's personal contact information such addresses, personal phones and social security numbers should be exempt from requests.

He also remarked that it will be up to other locales to determine the merits of similar FOIL requests.

Contact Will Cleveland at wcleveland@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @willcleveland13, Facebook @willcleveland13, and Instagram @clevelandroc. Thanks to our subscribers for supporting quality local journalism. If you aren’t a subscriber, please consider a digital subscription.