The active criminal investigation records exemption lets a government agency withhold law enforcement records when releasing them would interfere with a pending or anticipated enforcement action. At the federal level it lives in Exemption 7(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, and every state has its own version. The shield is real, but it is narrower than agencies sometimes make it sound: it only covers records genuinely tied to an ongoing case, it lifts once the case ends, and it does not justify withholding an entire file when only parts of it are sensitive.
What the Exemption Actually Covers
Before any Exemption 7 protection applies, the records have to clear a threshold: they must have been “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” An agency cannot relabel ordinary administrative files as investigative just because a tangentially related case exists. Courts give criminal law enforcement agencies more room here than civil agencies, but the records still need a genuine connection to an enforcement function.
Once that threshold is met, Exemption 7(A) allows withholding when disclosure “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” In NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court held that agencies do not always have to prove interference document by document; for certain categories of records in certain proceedings, courts can find that disclosure would “generally interfere” with the case.
Exemption 7 contains five other sub-categories that often get bundled into the same denial letter but operate on a different clock. They protect records that could deprive someone of a fair trial, cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, reveal a confidential source, expose investigative techniques, or endanger someone’s life or physical safety. Those five do not expire when the case closes. Only 7(A), the active-investigation piece, is tied to the status of the proceeding itself.
When an Investigation Counts as “Active”
“Active” means genuinely active. An agency that shelved a case years ago and stopped working it cannot keep invoking the exemption to block requests. State laws often phrase this as requiring a “good faith” law enforcement effort, meaning the agency is doing real investigative work rather than letting a file sit dormant.
The window closes in several ways. A conviction, acquittal, or dismissal ends the prosecution. The expiration of the applicable statute of limitations removes the prospect of future charges. An agency’s formal decision to close a case without charges signals the investigation is over. Once any of those events happens, the 7(A) justification for withholding falls away.
Closure does not automatically make everything public, though. If the file contains a confidential informant’s identity, that stays protected under 7(D) forever. Investigative techniques an agency uses across many cases stay exempt under 7(E). Personal privacy protections under 7(C) for people named in the file do not expire. So the end of an active investigation reopens some records, not all of them.
Records Agencies Typically Withhold
While a case is open, agencies most often withhold records that would reveal what investigators know, how they know it, and who told them:
- Witness identities and statements. Releasing names before trial creates risks of intimidation and testimony contamination. Robbins Tire specifically treated witness statements in pending proceedings as exempt because releasing them hands one side an unfair preview of the other’s case.
- Undercover officer identities, where exposure threatens both the individual and any related operations.
- Surveillance methods and forensic strategies, which stay confidential to prevent future suspects from learning how to evade detection.
- Forensic evidence like DNA analysis and ballistics reports, held back to preserve the integrity of trial proceedings. Investigators also guard details only a suspect would know, which is essential for evaluating confessions.
- Broader intelligence information that could compromise public safety efforts if released.
In unusually sensitive cases, a federal agency may issue a Glomar response, refusing to confirm or deny that any responsive records exist, when the acknowledgment itself would reveal protected information. Glomar responses are rare and receive significant deference from courts.
What Stays Public Even During an Active Case
The exemption does not swallow the whole file. Certain records remain accessible while an investigation continues, because withholding them would gut the accountability function public records laws exist to serve.
Initial incident or offense reports are the clearest example. These record the basic fact that a crime occurred, when and where, and the general nature of the offense. They exist to keep communities informed about public safety threats, and that purpose does not disappear because detectives are still working. The detailed investigative narrative is a separate question, but the core incident facts stay public.
Arrest records follow the same logic. Basic booking information, including the person’s name, age, and the charges filed, is generally available. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is being detained and why. Portions of an arrest affidavit that reveal investigative leads or confidential sources may be redacted, but the foundational arrest data stays accessible.
Body Camera Footage
Body-worn camera video is one of the most contested areas in public records law. It is generally treated as a public record, but a single recording can capture bystanders’ faces, the interiors of private homes, victim interviews, and tactical methods, all layered together.
Federal guidelines from the Bureau of Justice Assistance identify categories that should be redacted before release:
- Witness and victim faces and identifying details when disclosure could endanger safety
- Juvenile identities, particularly for minors in the court system or victims of sexual offenses
- Personal identifiers like Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account information visible in the footage
- Confidential informant identities and tactical intelligence
- Medical information and images of deceased individuals
Redacting video is far more labor-intensive than blacking out text. Agencies have to blur faces, mute audio segments, and sometimes re-render clips. Most states that have addressed body camera access have landed on a middle ground: the footage is a public record in principle, but specific exemptions and mandatory redactions shape what you actually receive.
How to Push Back on a Denial
An agency that withholds records cannot just say no. Under FOIA, the custodian has to identify the specific statutory exemption justifying the withholding, and if you ask in writing, explain with particularity why that exemption applies. A vague reference to “ongoing investigation” without tying it to a specific sub-exemption is not enough. The denial also has to inform you of your appeal rights and your right to seek mediation.
The biggest point of leverage is the segregation rule. FOIA requires that “any reasonably segregable portion of a record” be released after the exempt portions are deleted. An agency cannot refuse an entire 50-page file because three pages contain exempt material. It has to redact the protected portions and release the rest, and the redacted version has to indicate how much was removed and which exemption justified each deletion.
If the agency denies your request, you have at least 90 days to file an administrative appeal to the head of the agency, which must decide within 20 business days. Filing this appeal is generally a prerequisite to litigation; courts often dismiss FOIA suits where the requester skipped it.
The Office of Government Information Services, housed at the National Archives, offers free mediation between requesters and federal agencies. OGIS is a neutral third party, its process is voluntary, and its findings don’t bind either side, but it frequently resolves disputes that feel stuck. You can reach OGIS at ogis@nara.gov or 1-877-684-6448. Many states offer parallel options: public records ombudsmen, attorney general mediation programs, or public access counselors who issue advisory opinions. Not every state has one, so check yours before filing suit.
If appeal and mediation fail, you can file a civil action in federal court. FOIA litigation puts the burden on the agency to justify its withholding, not on you to prove the records should be released. If you “substantially prevail,” the court may order the government to pay your reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. You substantially prevail if you obtain relief through a court order, a consent decree, or a voluntary change in the agency’s position, as long as your claim wasn’t frivolous.
Protections That Don’t Depend on the Case Being Active
Separate from 7(A), several protections cover people named in law enforcement records regardless of whether the investigation is open or closed.
Confidential informants receive some of the strongest shields in the system. Federal regulations require that an informant’s name and address be kept confidential, and no files or information may be disclosed that could help someone identify the informant. Exemption 7(D) covers not only individual informants but also state, local, and foreign agencies that provided information on a confidential basis.
Child victims and witnesses receive mandatory protections. In federal cases, 18 U.S.C. ยง 3509 requires everyone connected to the proceeding, from government employees to court staff to jurors, to keep documents identifying a child victim in a secure location and share them only with people who need the information to participate. A knowing violation is criminal contempt, punishable by a fine and up to one year in prison.
Exemption 7(C) provides a broader privacy shield for personally identifiable information in law enforcement records whenever disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Courts weigh the public interest in disclosure against the privacy interest of the person identified. For private individuals who happen to appear in law enforcement files, the privacy interest almost always wins unless there is a compelling reason to release the information.