A law firm submitted a FOIA request seeking copies of
911 call recordings and other records related to a traffic crash, and the public body
disclosed responsive 911 recordings, but redacted the callers’ names and phone numbers. After the requestor submitted a request for review
with the PAC challenging the redactions, the public body disclosed the names of the callers, but
maintained that the home and personal phone numbers of the callers was exempt from disclosure under the “private
information” exemption in FOIA. The PAC agreed with the public body and issued a binding opinion finding that the public body properly redacted the callers’ phone
numbers. PAC Op. 24-012.
First, the PAC rejected the requester’s claim that law firms
are entitled to greater access to exempt information in public records because
attorneys are officers of the court, noting that FOIA applies equally to all
requestors and there is no statute supporting the existence of an
“attorney-exception” that would allow attorney to have broader access to
otherwise exempt information based on the professional credentials and motives
of the requestor.
Second, the PAC rejected the requester’s argument that the FOIA exemption in Section
7(1)(d)(iv) applies only to “confidential sources,” finding that the
exemption’s plain language includes people who file complaints with or
provide information to law enforcement agencies, like the callers at issue.
Third, the PAC rejected the requester’s argument that this same exemption does not apply when people call an agency and voluntarily provide
their information, because the plain language of the exemption does not
condition the confidentiality of a person’s name on whether those people have a
reasonable basis to believe their names will be kept confidential. The PAC
further noted that even if the 911 callers who provided their private phone
numbers anticipated being contacted about what they witnessed, this possibility
does not render this FOIA exemption inapplicable to the otherwise
confidential identifying information of people who voluntarily contact law
enforcement.
Finally, the PAC rejected the argument that the term
“identities” in that FOIA exemption also includes at least one piece of
personal information (e.g., home address, phone number, date of birth) in
addition to a person’s name, because there is no support for this claim.
Indeed, the PAC determined that the term “identity” is typically defined as a
person’s name, and a person’s other contact information is not necessary to
provide an essential component of an “identity.” Even if FOIA requires disclosing the identities of witnesses to traffic accidents, the PAC
stated this does not diminish a public body’s authority to redact
expressly exempt private information such as their phone numbers.
Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink
