The Virginia Supreme Court issued a split decision in *Keil v. O'Sullivan*, partially reversing lower court rulings in a case involving a sheriff's deputy's quest for records following his demotion. The court ruled that while Deputy Matthew Keil has no remedy under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, he may have valid claims under the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.
The case stems from 2022, when the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office demoted Officer Matthew Keil following an internal affairs investigation. In response to his demotion, Keil submitted records requests under both the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) and the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Government Data Act), seeking documents related to his case.
The sheriff's office produced some of the requested records but withheld others. When Keil challenged the withholding of documents, both the circuit court and the Virginia Court of Appeals rejected his requests for the contested records. The deputy then appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, which heard the case under Record No. 240824.
In its Feb. 12, 2026 opinion authored by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' determination that Keil has no remedy under the VFOIA. The court specifically endorsed Part II of the Court of Appeals opinion, which presumably addressed the VFOIA claims in detail.
However, the court took a different approach regarding Keil's claims under the Government Data Act. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment that had upheld the circuit court's dismissal of the deputy's Government Data Act claims. This reversal centers on whether the withheld records contain "personal information" that would be subject to Keil's "rights of data subjects" under Virginia Code Section 2.2-3806.
The Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act provides specific protections for individuals whose personal information is collected and maintained by government agencies. Under Code Section 2.2-3801, "personal information" is defined in ways that may encompass data about individuals that government entities collect and store. The act grants data subjects certain rights regarding their personal information held by government bodies.
The Supreme Court's decision requires a careful parsing of what constitutes "personal information" in the context of personnel records and internal affairs investigations. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, which must then remand it to the circuit court for an in-camera review of the records withheld by the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office.
During this in-camera review, the circuit court must determine whether any of the withheld records contain "personal information" about Deputy Keil that would be subject to his rights under the Government Data Act. The court ordered that any portions of the records that do not directly or indirectly contain "personal information" about Keil should be redacted before the deputy gains access to them.
This distinction between the two acts highlights important differences in Virginia's public records laws. The VFOIA generally governs public access to government records, while the Government Data Act specifically addresses individual rights regarding personal information held by government entities. The Supreme Court's ruling suggests that even when VFOIA claims fail, individuals may still have rights to access their own personal information under the Government Data Act.
The case presents several implications for government employees seeking records about their own employment situations. While the VFOIA may not provide a remedy in cases involving personnel matters, the Government Data Act may offer an alternative avenue for employees to access information about themselves.
For law enforcement agencies, the ruling clarifies that they must distinguish between general public records requests and requests by individuals seeking their own personal information. Agencies may need to review their procedures for handling records requests to ensure compliance with both acts.
The decision also demonstrates the courts' willingness to conduct detailed, case-by-case analysis of what constitutes "personal information" under the Government Data Act. The requirement for in-camera review suggests that courts must carefully examine disputed records to make these determinations.
The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over ancillary matters necessary to bring the case to closure, giving the circuit court authority to adjudicate any additional issues that arise during the remand process. This provision ensures that the case can be fully resolved at the trial court level without requiring additional appeals.
The case will now return to the Court of Appeals and then to the circuit court for the ordered in-camera review. The circuit court must examine each withheld document to determine what information, if any, qualifies as Deputy Keil's "personal information" under the Government Data Act and should be made available to him, with appropriate redactions for information that does not meet this standard.