Police Department May Decline to Release Names of Officers Trained by ICE

From In the Matter of Darney v. Carroll Township Police Dep’t, decided Aug. 31 by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, affirming a police department’s “redact[ing] officers’ names from certain training certificates” released in response to a Right-to-Know Law request for a police department’s “287(g) agreement” with ICE:

Section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the RTKL exempts from disclosure a record that “would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual.” To establish that this exemption applies, an agency must show: (1) a “reasonable likelihood” of (2) “substantial and demonstrable risk” to a person’s security. “Reasonably likely” has been interpreted as “requiring more than speculation.”

Under the RTKL, one method an agency may use in meeting the burden of proof that a record is exempt is a testimonial affidavit, which if “found to be relevant and credible may provide sufficient evidence in support of a claimed exemption.” Such “affidavits must be detailed, nonconclusory, and submitted in good faith.” No evidence has been presented to show that the Department acted in bad faith, and therefore the averments in the Department’s attestation should be accepted as true.

Here, [Chief of Police Thomas] Wargo Attests that the Department provided nine responsive training certificates. Further:

7. The Agency did not redact the fact that officers completed the training, the nature of the certification, the dates of certification, or other information demonstrating that the required training was completed….

10. Disclosure of the officers’ names would do more than identify them as Agency employees or police officers. It would specifically associate each named officer with ICE and immigration-enforcement activities under the 287(g) program.

11. Based upon my law-enforcement experience, training, knowledge of current conditions, and familiarity with threats directed toward law-enforcement personnel, publicly identifying the officers who completed 287(g) training would create a heightened risk to those officers and their families.

12. Immigration enforcement and cooperation with ICE are presently the subjects of significant public controversy, hostility, and organized opposition….

14. For example, in September 2025, the United States Department of Justice announced the arrest of an individual accused of maliciously publishing personal and identifying information concerning an ICE attorney. According to the federal criminal complaint described by the Department of Justice, the individual allegedly published the attorney’s name, photograph, work location, and other identifying information and encouraged others to confront and harass the attorney.

15. Also in September 2025, federal prosecutors announced charges against individuals accused of publishing personal information concerning an ICE agent following immigration-enforcement activity in Los Angeles. The published information reportedly included information concerning the agent’s identity and location and was allegedly disseminated for the purpose of intimidating, harassing, or interfering with the agent in the performance of official duties.

16. In another federal prosecution, individuals were charged with improperly accessing federal law-enforcement databases and obtaining sensitive personal information regarding law-enforcement personnel and other victims. Federal prosecutors alleged that the defendants threatened to publish victims’ personal information and used unlawfully obtained information to harass or extort them.

17. The Department of Homeland Security has also publicly warned of the danger created when the names, photographs, employment information, addresses, family information, and other identifying details of federal law-enforcement officers are collected and published online. DHS has stated that such disclosures have been accompanied by threats, harassment, intimidation, and efforts to target officers and their families…..

20. Law-enforcement personnel publicly associated with immigration enforcement may be subjected to doxxing, swatting, stalking, harassment, threats, damage to property, or confrontations while on duty or off duty.

21. Doxxing involves the public disclosure or dissemination of identifying or personal information concerning an individual, often for the purpose of facilitating harassment, threats, intimidation, or physical targeting.

22. Swatting involves making a false emergency report for the purpose of causing an armed law-enforcement response to an individual’s home or another location associated with that individual.

23. The disclosure of the names requested here would make it easier for persons hostile to ICE or the 287(g) program to identify, research, locate, monitor, or target the participating officers and their family members…..

28. The potential harm includes threats or physical confrontations directed toward the officers, harassment of their family members, interference with their personal lives, and efforts to impair their ability to carry out their official duties….

[T]he Department submitted credible evidence that threats, doxxing, and other forms of harassment have been directed toward law enforcement charged with enforcing existing federal immigration laws. While there is a clear public interest in the training certifications of law enforcement, … the Department has met its burden of proving that the officers’ names on the 287(g) certification records are exempt from disclosure under the RTKL because it poses a likelihood of a substantial and demonstrable risk to the personal security of those officers….

The post Police Department May Decline to Release Names of Officers Trained by ICE appeared first on Reason Magazine.