By Donald P. DeNault, Jr., YLS Immediate Past Chair
For the February 2004 Edition of Bar Briefs
The Freedom of Information Act, or "FOIA" as it is more affectionately known, was enacted for the purpose of affording all persons, with the exception of prisoners, access to "full and complete" information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees. As you might imagine, citizens and attorneys will often attempt to utilize FOIA to obtain personal information about other people. Perhaps an attorney needs the information for a personal injury lawsuit, or perhaps a resident wants to know who owns a piece of property. In these and many other circumstances, the requester often believes he or she is entitled to the requested information. However, Michigan courts will usually support a public body's decision to withhold personal information.
In Baker v City of Westland, a law firm requested the names, addresses, injury codes, and accident dates of all injured, potentially injured, or deceased accident victims who were involved in automobile accidents during a specific six-month period and who were not at fault for the accident. The City of Westland denied the request, arguing that such information is personal and private and therefore may be withheld under the FOIA exemption for information of a personal nature which may be withheld if public disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. The corporation sued the City to compel disclosure.
The trial court upheld the denial, and the Court of Appeals agreed with that decision. The Court of Appeals held that the requested information is information of a personal nature, and it is so personal that its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Court noted that the only relevant public interest to be reviewed under FOIA is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the FOIA - whether disclosure would contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Since the names, addresses, injury codes, and accident dates of persons injured in auto accidents do not further the knowledge of the public concerning how the government operates, such information does not need to be disclosed under FOIA.
The Baker opinion is consistent with the recent direction of Michigan courts when addressing FOIA requests. In Midwestern Audit Services v Department of State Police, the Court of Appeals held that redaction of UD-10 traffic crash reports to remove the personal information of the individuals involved in the traffic accidents was appropriate. The Court noted that, where individuals provide their personal information to comply with their statutory duties, such information is protected as private. In addition, disclosure of such information does not contribute to the public's understanding of the operation of government. Therefore, such information may be withheld by public bodies.
In 1999, the Michigan Supreme Court adopted the federal test for determining when private information must be released under FOIA. Adopting the test outlined in United States Dep't of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Court stated that "the only relevant public interest in disclosure to be weighed ... is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the FOIA, which is contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government." Mager v Dep't of State Police.
The Mager opinion addressed a FOIA request for the names and addresses of registered gun owners. The Supreme Court noted that such information, provided because the law required it, does not contribute to public understanding of the activities of the government. According to the Baker Court, the determinative fact in Mager was the plaintiff's use of the FOIA to compel disclosure of information about private individuals -- information unrelated to any inquiry regarding the workings of the government. The Mager Court held that because the information sought involved private citizens and did not relate to an inquiry about the workings of the government, disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
The Court of Appeals quoted and relied upon Mager in 2000 when it declined to require that the personal information of concealed weapon permit holders be released under FOIA. In Detroit Free Press, Inc v Dep't of State Police, the Court stated: "'[An] individual's interest in controlling the dissemination of information of personal matters does not dissolve simply because that information may be available to the public in some form.'" In United States Dept of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Authority, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that "[FOIA's] basic policy of 'full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language,' indeed focuses on the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to. Official information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within that statutory purpose. That purpose, however, is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct."
Similarly, in Kocher v Department of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a request for information on private citizens, such as citizens= addresses, is unrelated to how well the public body is complying with its statutory functions and duties. Therefore, release of such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
In Detroit Free Press, Inc v Department of Consumer and Industry Services, the plaintiff requested the names and addresses of private individuals in consumer complaints filed against property insurers. Citing Kocher, the Court held that the request was "unrelated to how well defendant is complying with its statutory functions." The Court also cited the 2000 Detroit Free Press opinion, holding that "redacting the names and addresses of the private citizen complainants strikes a balance between preserving 'the informative value' of the records sought and protecting the individual's right to privacy." In a footnote, the Court recognized that Michigan law allows the disclosure of individuals' names and addresses under certain circumstances. Several appellate opinions prior to 2000 support the release of personal information in specific circumstances. The Court noted, however, that release of personal information in complaints filed with the Department of Consumer and Industry Services "would do little to increase public understanding of defendant's performance of its statutory functions," and the information "is very personal in nature." As a result, the Court was "reluctant to disparage the privacy of the home, which is accorded special consideration in our Constitution, laws, and traditions." Mager and its progeny (and its U.S. Supreme Court predecessor) therefore stand for the proposition that public bodies may withhold personal information about individuals when confronted with a FOIA request for public records, particularly when the records contain personal information that was obtained because the individual was required by law to provide it. Moreover, Michigan's Legislature has recognized the importance of personal privacy by enacting various statutes to protect it. For example, Michigan's Vehicle Code prohibits the disclosure of a personal information@ that is found in records maintained under the MVC, including an individual=s photo, name, address (but not the zip code), signature, and medical information. It does not appear that Michigan's appellate courts have addressed this particular statute yet, but its plain language clearly bolsters the principle that FOIA is not designed to provide access to an individual's personal information.
Donald P. DeNault, Jr., is an attorney with the Sterling Heights law firm of O'Reilly, Rancilio, Nitz, Andrews, Turnbull & Scott, P.C. Mr. DeNault practices in the areas of general civil litigation and municipal law. For the latter, he regularly advises municipal entities regarding FOIA-related inquiries. He can be reached by phone at (586) 726-1000 or by e-mail at ddenault@orlaw.com.
245 Mich App 90; 627 NW2d 27 (2001)
Unpublished Opinion of the Court of Appeals No. 218066 (June 23, 2000) 510 US 487 (1994) 460 Mich 134, 145; 595 NW2d 142 (1999); quoting United States Dep't of Defense at 495 (emphasis in original) 243 Mich App 218, 227 n 6; 622 NW2d 313 (2000); quoting United States Dept of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Authority at 500 (1994) 510 US at 495-96 (citations omitted) 241 Mich App 378 (2000) 246 Mich App 311; 631 NW2d 769 (2001) MCL 28.298
