The Freedom of Information Act is wildly beneficial to journalists—and citizens in general—because it allows us access to a wide range of government documents. The “FOIA” acronym gets tossed around the newsroom pretty frequently, whether it is in regard to certain state-issued documents, police bodycam footage, or even text messages sent by university employees that we are investigating for some reason. FOIA is an incredibly helpful tool.
A few other outlets recently reported that Joshua Duggar was caught in possession of an electronic cellular device while serving his prison sentence at FCI Seagoville. Initially, I didn’t pay much attention to this story. He’s locked up, he’s doing his time, and I don’t feel a need to manufacture stories when real news doesn’t exist.
But then I thought about it. I went back to the details of his sentencing, and I looked at what Judge Brooks included as enhancements—negative knocks against Duggar—in arriving at a sentence, and it dawned on me that if he had acquired a cell phone, Duggar could be engaging in all of that behavior again. So I sent in a FOIA request and asked for…well, pretty much everything.
I did not expect to receive everything I asked for, but I thought it was better to be broad with the request. I also did not expect to be denied completely:
On a separate page, they included the U.S. statutes behind some of the exemptions they were citing. Some of these defenses seemed tenuous at best. Financial institutions? Trade secrets? Wells?!?
I decided to appeal. That was a first for me, so I just did the best job I could of explaining why I felt that the benefit of reporting on the situation outweighed the privacy concerns.
<<To whom it may concern,
My initial FOIA request asked for all documentation of disciplinary actions, incident reports, changes in status, changes in housing, changes in sentencing, and any other reports not listed since the date of his incarceration at FCI Seagoville for Joshua James Duggar, 35, BOP # 42501-509. All of my requests were rejected, generally citing the inmate's privacy.
Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Duggar was disciplined after being found in possession of an electronic cellular device. Given the nature of the crimes for which he was convicted in the Western District of Arkansas federal court on 12-9-21, I believe that my potential reporting on his actions falls into the category of an “overriding public interest,” as referred to in the request rejection email that I received on 3-15-23.
At Mr. Duggar’s sentencing hearing on 5-25-22, Judge Timothy L. Brooks cited five enhancements that added to the length of the sentence:
A two-level enhancement for downloading illegal material involving prepubescent minors.
A four-level enhancement for downloading illegal, “sadistic and masochistic” material.
A five-level enhancement for Duggar’s “pattern of activity.”
A two-level enhancement because the offense involved a computer.
A four-level enhancement for the total number of illegal images downloaded.
If a cellular device is the equivalent of a computer, then every single one of those enhancements is something that Mr. Duggar could yet again be engaging in while incarcerated. Judge Brooks also said that a need to protect the public was a component of the sentence. He added that he had a concern that Mr. Duggar might re-offend in the future.
“Child pornography represents an added injury to those who can least sustain another injury,” Judge Brooks said, adding that the victims of childhood sexual abuse live with it “every day for their entire life.” If Mr. Duggar was found in possession of a cellular device, that would give him the capacity to continue injuring those victims, and reporting on that is absolutely within the public interest. The judge also noted that Mr. Duggar “went through great efforts” to obtain illegal Child Sexual Assault Material in the past.
Federal prosecutors deemed some of the evidence admitted at trial as “among the worst child pornography images in existence.”
“This is some sick stuff,” said Judge Brooks of that material, calling it, “The worst of the worst.”
Reporting on any actions by Mr. Duggar that fall remotely within the realm of the charges he was convicted of, and his proven pattern of behavior, is undoubtedly an overriding public interest that supersedes minor privacy concerns.
If Mr. Duggar obtained access to any cellular device, that inherently makes him a threat to the public, given the nature of his past convictions. I simply want to report on that in the interest of the public.
Thank you for your consideration.>>
I also pointed out specific things that I had no intention of writing about, including confidential sources and issues involving anyone’s physical safety, and said that I would swear to that if necessary. I already received a response letting me know that they generally process these in the order that they are received. I have no timetable for when they’ll get to mine.
This may all get rejected again. But if that’s the case, it really does make me wonder…what are they hiding? Why wouldn’t they give me some of the broader details regarding what happened? A report saying “inmate X did Y and the disciplinary action was Z” seems really standard to me, and that doesn’t feel like much of an invasion of anyone’s privacy. Especially if the actions concern potential crimes against minor children on the outside.
Now, we wait and see.