The case was brought by a citizen who alleged that a police officer sexually and physically assaulted her during the course of a traffic stop. Investigations were conducted by the cities of Puyallup (criminal) and Mercer Island (internal investigation).  Each investigation found the claims to be unsubstantiated.  The case garnered media attention, and several journalists and news organizations, in addition to the complainant herself, made public records requests for the investigative reports.  The cities of Puyallup and Mercer Island informed the requestors that the documents would be produced absent an injunction, which the Police Guild and the implicated officer sought (though not before at least one of the reports had been released and information published by some media sources).

Subsequent records requests and demands for injunctions led to in camera review of the documents by a Kitsap County Superior Court judge, who determined that the reports should be withheld under the investigative report exception to the PRA, RCW 42.56.240(1).  Injunctions were also sought against requestors in Pierce County Superior Court.  That court determined that the Puyallup report could be withheld from disclosure under the personal information exemption to the PRA, former RCW 42.56.230(2) and privacy concerns under RCW 42.56.050.  Injunctions enjoining disclosure of the reports were granted in King County Superior Court on the same grounds.

The Supreme Court accepted direct review.  The lead opinion (4 justices) overturned the King and Pierce County decisions, which had determined that the reports could be withheld in their entirety based on privacy concerns under the PRA’s personal information exemption.  Personal information is not defined in the PRA, but has been defined by the Supreme Court as “information relating to or affecting a particular individual, information associated with private concerns or information that is public and not general.”  Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 164 Wn.2d 199, 211, 189 P.3d 139 (2008).  The Court rejected the trial courts’ determination that the reports should be withheld in their entirety, and instead instructed the agencies to produce the records, but redact identifying information (i.e. the officer’s name, social security number or other identifying data) in order to protect personal privacy interests.  The Court compared the unsubstantiated allegations against police officers with the Bellevue John Does case, where the Court found the names of public school teachers who are the subject of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct are exempt from disclosure, but the underlying investigative reports (with names redacted) were subject to release.  The Court also addressed the investigative records exemption to the PRA, RCW 42.56.240(1) (raised in the Kitsap County Superior Court case), and found it inapplicable, as the records are not essential to effective law enforcement.  Disclosure of the records (without identifying information) was justified by the public’s “legitimate interest” in knowing how the allegations of misconduct were investigated. Opinion at 18-22; see also RCW 42.56.050.

In contrast, the concurrence/dissent (4 justices) asserted that the entire record should be released, including the officer’s name.  Justice Madsen wrote that an officer’s name does not need to be redacted in an investigation or complaint against a police officer for sexual misconduct, because such allegations “in no way involve the details of one’s personal and private life.” Concurrence/dissent at 1.  “Public records relating to alleged misconduct of public servants and who government agents investigate such allegations are quintessential examples of the kind of information that the PRA opens to scrutiny.  The public has the right to know… .” Concurrence/dissent at 2.  That opinion would hold that the exemptions raised by the Police Guild and the officer did not justify nondisclosure.

Finally, Justice Johnson wrote a lone dissent finding that the two investigative reports “fit squarely” within the PRA exemption for investigative records, thus should not be disclosed at all. He found the lead opinion to be inconsistent with Bellevue John Does.

The practical result of these decisions is that disclosure outweighs privacy concerns in the arena of public employees’ misconduct. Investigative records detailing claims of misconduct must be released and available to the public. This will likely apply across the board to all public sector employees, and will not be limited solely to law enforcement or education. Even if allegations are unsubstantiated, the record must be released, though with redaction of names or personal identifying information.

Click here for a recent Seattle Times article on the decision.

Many districts have complied, but the Madison School District (“District”), which had four days of closures in February, has denied several public records requests.  As reported by the Wisconsin State Journal, the District is concerned that the release of the teachers’ names could “risk the safety of teachers and students, and disrupt morale and the learning environment in schools.”  The requesting groups deny that the information will be used to harm or harass teachers.  However, the District’s counsel believes otherwise, citing “a number of threats” made against board members, administrators and district employees as a result of teachers’ participation in the protests.

Some districts have successfully prevented disclosure of teachers’ names. The Wisconsin Education Association Council argued on behalf of the La Crosse and Holmen School Districts that safety risks outweighed the benefits of disclosure, obtaining an injunction from a La Crosse Circuit Court Judge.

Wisconsin’s Public Records laws do not include a disclosure exemption for general safety concerns. There is an exemption for specific employee records, including “personally identifiable information” such as addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers. Sec. 19.36(1) of the 2003 Wisconsin Act 47.  However, the requestors in this case seek only names, not identifying information.

When there is no established exemption (by statute or common law) and a public records custodian has doubts or concerns about whether to release records, Wisconsin courts perform a balancing test. Sec. 19.35(1)(a).  Records may be withheld only if the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure, as there is a strong presumption of access.  See Matter of Estates v. Zimmer, 151 Wis. 2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

It remains to be seen how the court will balance the competing interests in this case, and whether the District’s safety argument will outweigh the presumption of disclosure that is central to the Wisconsin Public Records Act.

Washington’s Public Records Act is similar, in that there is no blanket exemption for safety or privacy. To prevent disclosure out of concerns for privacy or safety, an agency must prove that disclosure of the information 1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and 2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.  RCW 42.56.050.  Specific personal identifying data is, of course, exempt from disclosure. RCW 42.56.210.  However, names must generally be disclosed.  See John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, __ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2811, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2011) (finding that Washington’s public records act authorized the release of the names of voters who signed referendum petitions); King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. 325, 57 P.3d 307 (2002) (holding that public records act does not exempt from disclosure the full names and ranks of county police officers).

An article in the May 26, 2011 Seattle Times highlights a recent Seattle “name release” case.  A labor arbitrator, acting at the request of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, just ordered the Seattle Police Department to stop releasing the names of officers found to have engaged in misconduct.  It is reported that the city attorneys plan to appeal, believing the decision is in conflict with Washington law.
 

FOIA exempts from mandatory disclosure records collected for law enforcement purposes to the extent disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). FOIA does not define personal, but does define person as “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(2). 

This case arose from a FCC investigation into whether AT&T overcharged the U.S. government for an AT&T program. Under the program, AT&T provided equipment and services to elementary and secondary schools and then billed the U.S. government for program costs. In 2004, AT&T discovered that that it may have overcharged the U.S. government for some services, and voluntarily reported the issue to the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. The FCC investigated the matter and the issue was ultimately settled.

Following the investigation, CompTel, a trade association representing AT&T competitors, submitted a FOIA request to the FCC seeking records relating to the AT&T investigation. AT&T opposed the disclosure, arguing that the records were collected as part of a law enforcement investigation and the disclosure of the records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of AT&T’s privacy. The FCC rejected AT&T’s argument stating “personal privacy” does not apply to corporations. 

AT&T ultimately appealed the decision to the Third Circuit, which ruled in favor of AT&T.  The Third Circuit held that “FOIA’s text unambiguously indicates that a corporation may have a ‘personal privacy’ interest within the meaning of the [law enforcement exemption].” 582 F.3d at 498. The Third Circuit remanded to determine whether the disclosure of these particular documents would constitute an unwarranted invasion of AT&T’s personal privacy.

The Third Circuit’s opinion noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely rejected a corporation’s ability to claim a personal privacy interest.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc. will test this precedent. 

An action commenced and the trial court and Court of Appeals agreed with the Attorney General. On December 3, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed, holding “a disclosure of state employee birth dates would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore exempted from disclosure” under the Texas public disclosure law.

In its consideration, the Supreme Court made specific reference to the public harm caused by identity theft and that the availability of birth dates may facilitate identity theft. The Texas Supreme Court noted other decisions, particularly court decisions under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, that “birth dates implicate substantial privacy interests.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the spring and issue a decision by the end of June 2010.

"D'Amico wins open records suit against Jefferson County for Commissioner Sullivan's phone calls"  Port Townsend Leader

"Records show WWU hushing of information, criticism of student newspaper article" Bellingham Herald

"Monroe's business gets done in secret"  Everett Herald