| Next revision | Previous revision |
| lexflow:dc:records [2026/10/10 01:20] – lexflow: Claude-checked process model and local answers alibama | lexflow:dc:records [2026/10/10 09:02] (current) – lexflow: Claude-checked process model and local answers alibama |
|---|
| ===== Steps and the words they come from ===== | ===== Steps and the words they come from ===== |
| |
| - **Request record, reasonably describing it** — Requester · //right// (§ 2-532(c)(1)) \\ “//upon request reasonably describing any public record//” | - **Request record, reasonably describing it** — Requester · //right// (§ 2-532%%(c)%%(1)) \\ “//upon request reasonably describing any public record//” |
| - **Decide whether to extend the time limit** — D.C. public body · //permission// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//In unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in subsection (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section may be extended//” | - **Decide whether to extend the time limit** — D.C. public body · //permission// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//In unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in subsection %%(c)%%(1) and %%(c)%%(2) of this section may be extended//” |
| - **Send written notice of reasons and expected date** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for extension and expected date for determination//” | - **Send written notice of reasons and expected date** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for extension and expected date for determination//” |
| - **Grant access or give written reasons for denial** — D.C. public body · within 15 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-532(c)(1)) \\ “//shall within 15 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor//” | - **Grant access or give written reasons for denial** — D.C. public body · within 15 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-532%%(c)%%(1)) \\ “//shall within 15 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor//” |
| - **Grant access or give reasons by extended date** — D.C. public body · within 25 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//Such extension shall not exceed 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) for records requested under subsection (c)(1) of this section//” | - **Grant access or give reasons by extended date** — D.C. public body · within 25 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//Such extension shall not exceed 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) for records requested under subsection %%(c)%%(1) of this section//” |
| - **Request deemed denied** — D.C. public body (§ 2-532(e)) \\ “//shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request//” | - **Request deemed denied** — D.C. public body (§ 2-532(e)) \\ “//shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request//” |
| - **Provide segregable portion; mark and explain deletions** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-534(b)) \\ “//Any reasonably segregable portion of a public record shall be provided to any person requesting the record after deletion of those portions which may be withheld from disclosure//” | - **Provide segregable portion; mark and explain deletions** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-534(b)) \\ “//Any reasonably segregable portion of a public record shall be provided to any person requesting the record after deletion of those portions which may be withheld from disclosure//” |
| ===== What the text leaves open ===== | ===== What the text leaves open ===== |
| |
| * 'respond' stands for the whole answer under § 2-532(c)(1): the determination together with making the record accessible or notifying the requester of the denial and its reasons. It carries the 15-working-day timer, and a miss routes to deemed_denied (consequence 'deemed-denial', § 2-532(e)). The compiler draws a decision step as a business-rule task without a message flow, so the answer reaches the requester through release_segregable (written explanation, segregable part) or make_accessible (the record). Those follow-up acts, and the fee step before release, carry no timer of their own: the model treats the timed answer as the act the time limit governs. The drawn timer starts when 'respond' starts, just after the extension choice, rather than at receipt itself. | * 'respond' stands for the whole answer under § 2-532%%(c)%%(1): the determination together with making the record accessible or notifying the requester of the denial and its reasons. It carries the 15-working-day timer, and a miss routes to deemed_denied (consequence 'deemed-denial', § 2-532(e)). The compiler draws a decision step as a business-rule task without a message flow, so the answer reaches the requester through release_segregable (written explanation, segregable part) or make_accessible (the record). Those follow-up acts, and the fee step before release, carry no timer of their own: the model treats the timed answer as the act the time limit governs. The drawn timer starts when 'respond' starts, just after the extension choice, rather than at receipt itself. |
| * An extension under § 2-532(d)(1) takes effect by written notice (notify_extension, when extension_taken). The extended answer is a separate step, respond_extended, timed at 25 working days from receipt (15 plus at most 10); the expected date in the notice may be earlier, and the model does not draw that date. The drawn timer of respond_extended starts after the notice, so it can run somewhat past 25 working days from receipt. The statute does not say when the extension notice must be sent; because it extends 'the time limits', it presumably has to go out before the 15 working days end. | * An extension under § 2-532(d)(1) takes effect by written notice (notify_extension, when extension_taken). The extended answer is a separate step, respond_extended, timed at 25 working days from receipt (15 plus at most 10); the expected date in the notice may be earlier, and the model does not draw that date. The drawn timer of respond_extended starts after the notice, so it can run somewhat past 25 working days from receipt. The statute does not say when the extension notice must be sent; because it extends 'the time limits', it presumably has to go out before the 15 working days end. |
| * A deemed denial is also deemed exhaustion of administrative remedies (§ 2-532(e)): that status is what lets the requester sue directly (§ 2-537(a)(1)) instead of petitioning the Mayor. deemed_denial_not_challenged is the end for a requester who does neither. | * A deemed denial is also deemed exhaustion of administrative remedies (§ 2-532(e)): that status is what lets the requester sue directly (§ 2-537(a)(1)) instead of petitioning the Mayor. deemed_denial_not_challenged is the end for a requester who does neither. |
| * Advance payment may be required only if the requester previously failed to pay on time or the fee will exceed $250 (§ 2-532(b-3)); otherwise release does not wait for payment. Review costs exclude legal or policy analysis (b-2); 'reasonable efforts' caps reprogramming or reformatting at 8 hours of personnel time (f)(1). These limits are not separate steps. | * Advance payment may be required only if the requester previously failed to pay on time or the fee will exceed $250 (§ 2-532(b-3)); otherwise release does not wait for payment. Review costs exclude legal or policy analysis (b-2); 'reasonable efforts' caps reprogramming or reformatting at 8 hours of personnel time (f)(1). These limits are not separate steps. |
| * Petitioning the Mayor is not available for records of the Council (§ 2-537(a-1)) or the Attorney General (a-2) ('Except as provided in subsections (a-1) and (a-2)'); the model leaves requester_petitions_mayor to the case and does not enforce this. | * Petitioning the Mayor is not available for records of the Council (§ 2-537(a-1)) or the Attorney General (a-2) ('Except as provided in subsections (a-1) and (a-2)'); the model leaves requester_petitions_mayor to the case and does not enforce this. |
| * Body-worn camera recordings of the Metropolitan Police Department have 25 working days plus up to 15 more in unusual circumstances, including the inability to procure a redaction vendor, and may only be requested from MPD (§ 2-532(c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(2)(C)). Not modelled separately. | * Body-worn camera recordings of the Metropolitan Police Department have 25 working days plus up to 15 more in unusual circumstances, including the inability to procure a redaction vendor, and may only be requested from MPD (§ 2-532%%(c)%%(2), (d)(1), (d)(2)%%(C)%%). Not modelled separately. |
| * Where and how to file (which office, which form) is set by each public body's rules issued after notice and comment under § 2-532(a); the statute text does not say. | * Where and how to file (which office, which form) is set by each public body's rules issued after notice and comment under § 2-532(a); the statute text does not say. |
| * No deadline for petitioning the Mayor or for suing is stated in these sections. | * No deadline for petitioning the Mayor or for suing is stated in these sections. |
| * In court the burden is on the agency, review is de novo and records may be examined in camera (§ 2-537(b)); a prevailing requester may recover fees (c); an arbitrary or capricious violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $100 (§ 2-537(d)). Not modelled as steps. | * In court the burden is on the agency, review is de novo and records may be examined in camera (§ 2-537(b)); a prevailing requester may recover fees %%(c)%%; an arbitrary or capricious violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $100 (§ 2-537(d)). Not modelled as steps. |
| | |
| | ===== Court decisions citing this law ===== |
| | |
| | //Found with [[https://www.courtlistener.com|CourtListener]] (Free Law Project): opinions in the state's appellate courts whose text cites these sections. Listed for research; not every citing case construes the section.// |
| | |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3184301/john-doe-no-1-v-susan-l-burke/|JOHN DOE NO. 1 v. SUSAN L. BURKE]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2016, 133 A.3d 569; 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1513; 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 49; 2016 WL 932799) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5145601/fraternal-order-of-police-v-district-of-columbia/|Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2012, 52 A.3d 822; 2012 WL 3601097; 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 340) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2790880/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-labor-committee-v-district-of/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015, 113 A.3d 195; 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 108; 2015 WL 1482557) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2779015/david-p-frankel-v-district-of-columbia-office-for-planning-and-economic/|David P. Frankel v. District of Columbia Office for Planning and Economic Development]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015, 110 A.3d 553; 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 29; 2015 WL 862828) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4423072/illinois-farmers-insurance-co-v-hagenberg/|Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Hagenberg]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2017, 167 A.3d 1218; 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 266) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1908982/wemhoff-v-district-of-columbia/|Wemhoff v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2005, 887 A.2d 1004; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 645; 2005 WL 3434072) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1980188/gause-v-united-states/|Gause v. United States]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008, 959 A.2d 671; 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 432; 2008 WL 4735170) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2443827/riley-v-fenty/|Riley v. Fenty]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010, 7 A.3d 1014; 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 668; 2010 WL 4537124) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2443827/riley-v-fenty/|Riley v. Fenty]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010, 7 A.3d 1014; 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 668; 2010 WL 4537124) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2310858/united-states-v-white/|United States v. White]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997, 689 A.2d 535; 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 10; 1997 WL 50544) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654933/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police-labor-committee-v-the/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Labor Committee v. The District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013, 79 A.3d 347; 2013 WL 6227788; 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 779) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2404883/brooks-v-district-of-columbia-housing-authority/|Brooks v. District of Columbia Housing Authority]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010, 999 A.2d 134; 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 405; 2010 WL 2850279) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1978818/office-of-the-peoples-counsel-v-public-service-commission/|Office of the People's Counsel v. Public Service Commission]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008, 955 A.2d 169; 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 439; 2008 WL 3925283) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147078/district-of-columbia-v-fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police/|District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013, 75 A.3d 259; 2013 WL 5036148; 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 602) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144651/padou-v-district-of-columbia/|Padou v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011, 29 A.3d 973; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 607; 2011 WL 4975262) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144651/padou-v-district-of-columbia/|Padou v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011, 29 A.3d 973; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 607; 2011 WL 4975262) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2959659/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police-labor-committee-v-district/|FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015, 124 A.3d 69; 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 447; 204 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3349; 2015 WL 5474117) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654903/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-labor-committee-v-district-of/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbi]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014, 82 A.3d 803; 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 2; 2014 WL 23649) — cites § 2-534 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654903/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-labor-committee-v-district-of/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbi]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014, 82 A.3d 803; 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 2; 2014 WL 23649) — cites § 2-537 |
| | * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144785/district-of-columbia-v-fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police-labor/|District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police Metropolitan Police Labor Committee]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011, 33 A.3d 332; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 692; 2011 WL 6415259) — cites § 2-534 |
| |
| ===== Checks ===== | ===== Checks ===== |
| ===== Local answers ===== | ===== Local answers ===== |
| |
| * [[lexflow:dc:washington_dc|City of Washington Dc]] | * [[lexflow:dc:washington_dc:records|City of Washington DC]] |
| |
| ← [[lexflow:start|lexflow models]] | ← [[lexflow:dc|District of Columbia]] · [[lexflow:start|lexflow models]] |
| |
