FOIA Exemption 7's six subparts, and where law enforcement records leak

FOIA Exemption 7 lets a federal agency withhold records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only when release would cause one of six listed harms. The six subparts, 7(A) to 7(F), cover interference with enforcement proceedings, an unfair trial or adjudication, an invasion of personal privacy, exposure of a confidential source, disclosure of techniques or guidelines and danger to anyone's life or physical safety. A record has to pass the exemption's threshold first, and each subpart then has its own test.

The list fits in one sentence of the statute. Applying it is harder, because the detail that gives away a source or a method is rarely labeled as one.

The six subparts

The text is in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7). An agency may withhold compiled law enforcement records or information only to the extent that a subpart's test is met.

Subpart 7(C) has its own post, and it weighs privacy against a public interest. The Department of Justice's Guide to the FOIA says 7(D) and 7(F) have no balancing test, and that 7(B) is rarely invoked. Under all six, agencies must consider whether harm to the protected interest is reasonably foreseeable, then segregate and mark what they release.

The threshold comes first

No subpart applies until the record passes the threshold: it must be compiled for law enforcement purposes. The law can be criminal, civil or regulatory, and the record need not be investigative, so a law enforcement manual can qualify. Information keeps its protection when it is reproduced or summarized in a document made for another purpose (FBI v. Abramson).

An agency with mixed functions can use Exemption 7 too, but courts hold it to a higher standard: it must show that the records involved enforcing a statute or regulation within its authority.

What ends when the case ends

Closing a case changes less than people expect.

• 7(A) usually ends. As a general rule it applies only while a proceeding is pending or fairly regarded as prospective. Congress meant to make clear that it "did not endlessly protect material simply because it was in an investigatory file" (NLRB v. Robbins Tire). A related proceeding can keep it alive, such as another defendant's case, an appeal or a motion for a new trial.
• 7(D) doesn't. The Guide says protection isn't diminished when an investigation closes. Unlike 7(C), it also isn't diminished when the person dies, and it doesn't disappear if the source's identity later becomes known through other means.
• 7(E) and 7(F) don't depend on it. Nothing in their text requires an open case.

Who counts as a confidential source

Being a witness isn't enough. In DOJ v. Landano the Supreme Court held that the government can't presume everyone who gives the FBI information during a criminal investigation is a confidential source. A source qualifies through an express promise of confidentiality or circumstances that imply one, such as the nature of the crime and the source's relation to it. The category still reaches past paid informants: the Guide lists crime victims, citizens who volunteer information, employees reporting on employers, prisoners and medical personnel.

What 7(E) protects, and what it doesn't

Exemption 7(E) has two clauses. Techniques and procedures are how an agency investigates. Guidelines are how it decides whether to investigate, and they are protected only if release could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.

Public knowledge decides many of these redactions. Courts have denied protection to wiretaps, post office boxes and pretext telephone calls as generally known. Details are another matter: courts have upheld withholding the details of known methods such as polygraph examinations, undercover operations and surveillance, because disclosure could reduce their effectiveness.

Where law enforcement records leak

Nearly half of the exemptions agencies cited in fiscal year 2025 came from these six subparts: 7(C) at 25.07%, 7(E) at 23.45%, 7(A) at 0.71%, 7(D) at 0.34%, 7(F) at 0.20% and 7(B) at 0.05%, according to the Department of Justice's annual summary. Those calls are made on records like these.

Details that point to a source

Removing the name often isn't enough. The Guide says 7(D) reaches anything that would "tend to reveal" a source, including telephone numbers, symbol numbers and the time and place of meetings. "The night manager at Fairway Market saw the van twice after closing on Tuesday" names no one, yet anyone who knows the store knows who that is. A code such as "CI-14" left in place links every statement that source gave.

Techniques written into a narrative

Reports describe what was done in the same sentence as what was found: "Set the plate reader at mile 14 on Route 9 for the week before the pickup." That plate readers exist is no secret. Where one sat and for how long may be.

Case numbers, codes and unit names

"File 26-41877, routed to Unit 7, Eastside Task Force" can repeat in every header and stamp. The Guide lists codes, case and file numbers, the identities and locations of specific units and certain databases among the things courts have protected. One page left unredacted can undo the rest.

Security details in routine paperwork

An incident report can mention a code in passing: "Crew used the south sally port, keypad 4471#." The Guide puts the staffing, physical structure and security plans of prison facilities under 7(F), and information technology security details under 7(E).

Dispatch logs and notes about people at risk

A log can hold a caller's details on one line: "Caller Ana Ruiz, 555-0142, neighbor at 216 Oak St, asked not to be named." Courts accept notations on a document's face as support for an express promise of confidentiality, so that phrase deserves a second look. Subpart 7(F) protects "any individual", and courts have applied it to inmates and medical personnel: "Inmate moved after threats; treated by nurse D. Okafor" puts two people at risk, and neither is a source.

Old typewritten files

Older investigations survive as carbons and photocopies, where 7(A) has long lapsed and 7(D) has not. A text search finds nothing on them until OCR reads the page, and a handwritten "CI-14 says Tuesday" in the margin can sit beside typed text that looks clean.

A checklist before a law enforcement file is released

• The records pass the threshold, and each withholding rests on a named subpart.
• Anything withheld only under 7(A) has been rechecked: is a proceeding still pending or expected?
• Source names are gone, along with the phone numbers, meeting times, symbol numbers and descriptions that point to them.
• Techniques the public knows are released, and the details of how they were used have been considered.
• Case numbers, codes, unit names and database names have been considered, including in headers and stamps.
• Door codes, logins and other security details are gone, even when mentioned in passing.
• Everyone at risk has been considered, not only sources and officers.
• Scanned and typewritten pages have been read by OCR, and handwritten notes checked.
• Nonexempt text is released, each deletion is marked with its exemption and redacted text is removed, not covered.

Where DocArmor fits

DocArmor's FOIA & Public Records Exemptions template has fields for the parts of Exemption 7 a page can show: Confidential Sources & Witnesses, Protected Personnel & People at Risk, Investigative Techniques & Guidelines and Critical Infrastructure & Security Safeguards. It has no field for 7(A) or 7(B), which turn on whether a proceeding is pending, and it leaves ordinary officers' names in place, so add a plain-English instruction if your agency withholds them. OCR reads typewritten pages and degraded scans. Every redaction is proposed by the AI and confirmed by a person, because whether a source spoke in confidence or a technique is publicly known is a judgment the agency has to make. Redacted content is removed and checked on every page, and metadata, attachments and form values are stripped, so released records can't be un-redacted.

This post is general information about the federal FOIA, not legal advice. State public records laws have their own exemptions for police and investigative records, so check yours and your agency's FOIA regulations.