![]() ![]() ![]() He grabbed a handgun and convinced two of his friends, Willis Haynes and Victor Gloria, to come with him. The three women walked out, but Higgs did not let matters rest. It is enough to say that Higgs and the three female victims had been at Higgs’s apartment, and Higgs had an argument with one of them. I We do not need to examine the details of the murders interested readers can find them in the Fourth Circuit’s opinion on direct appeal, at 353 F.3d 281. The net e ect is that this case is over: the government is not obliged to turn over any of these additional materials under FOIA. With respect to Exemption 7(D) materials, we agree with the district court’s result (though not necessarily all of its reasoning) and a rm. We conclude that the district court erred when it found that the public interest prevailed over the privacy interests of the persons involved, and thus it should have refused disclosure of those documents pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The government has appealed from the district court’s judgment insofar as it ordered disclosure under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) Higgs has cross-appealed from the court’s refusal to order disclosure of the materials under Exemption 7(D). That failure of proof meant, the court decided, that Higgs was entitled to the documents. It gave little weight to the privacy interests of the people concerned, in part because the murders took place 22 years earlier and in part because it thought that the FBI had not met its burden of proof on that point. The court accordingly held that the FBI had to release all of the personal information at issue, including names of still-living people, contact information, reports of interviews, fingerprints, and rap sheets for third parties. It concluded that the FBI had properly withheld certain documents under Exemption 7(D), but that the FBI did not justify the invocation of Nos. ” Upon the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court split the di erence. Exemptions (6) and 7(C) cover materials that would invade personal privacy, while Exemption 7(D) covers information that “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, … and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation … information furnished by a confidential source …. Some aspects of Higgs’s demands have since been resolved, but he primarily has contended in his lawsuit that the FBI’s decisions to redact or withhold information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D), 5 U.S.C. Dissatisfied with the government’s response, Higgs filed a complaint in the Southern District of Indiana, where USP Terre Haute is located, seeking information that the FBI had refused to turn over. This case arises out of that FOIA request. The Park Police produced some information and then referred the request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (among other agencies). Park Police, seeking a complete copy of everything pertaining to the homicide convictions. Along the way, in 2012, an investigator from the Federal Community Defender O ce for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the U.S. ![]() 18-2826, 18-2937 Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, has insisted for years that the government failed to turn over certain exculpatory evidence to which he is entitled under Brady v. Higgs, now housed on the federal death row within the U.S. Because the murders took place in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge, a federal property in Maryland, he was tried in federal court for these crimes. More than two decades ago, Dustin Higgs kidnapped and murdered three women. _ ARGUED APDECIDED AUG_ Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges. 2:16-cv-96-JMS-MJD - Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. UNITED STATES PARK POLICE, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. 18-2826, 18-2937 DUSTIN JOHN HIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. ![]() In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit _ Nos. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |