Washington, DC

Bookmark and Share

Publications

E.g., 07/21/2024
E.g., 07/21/2024
10/13/2020

Request for records of public arrest reports. MPD’s response was remanded to contact the requester to clarify the records sought, conduct an adequate search, and disclose nonexempt records on a rolling basis.

2017-120
10/13/2020

Request for records related to government contracts. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DCHF responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.

10/13/2020

Request for records related to allegations of cronyism and nepotism. OIG’s response was affirmed on the basis that it conducted an adequate search and no responsive records were found.

10/13/2020

Request for incident reports between 1994 and 1998. MPD’s response was affirmed on the basis that it conducted an adequate search and no longer maintained responsive records.

2017-135
10/13/2020

Request for records related to Democratic National Committee and the Profiling Project. The appeal was based on ODMPSJ failure to response to the request and ODMPSJ did not respond to the appeal. As a result, the request was remanded to ODMPSJ.

2017-118
10/13/2020

Request for records related to government contracts. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DCHR responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.

2017-123
10/13/2020

Request for records related to complaints against a police officer. MPD’s Glomar denial was affirmed on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

2017-128
10/13/2020

Request for records related to medical marijuana dispensary applications. On appeal DOH reconsider its initial denial and disclosed responsive records with redactions to protect personal privacy. DOH’s redactions were affirmed.

2017-133
09/15/2020

Request for records related to documents submitted in a discrimination case. OHR’s denial was remanded, and OHR was ordered to disclose copies of documents that were originally submitted by the requester.  

 

2017-116
09/15/2020

Request for an individual’s autopsy report. OCME’s denial was affirmed because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and violate statutory procedures to release autopsy reports.

2017-104

Pages

Subscribe to Publications List