Privacy Rights of Arrestees Trump Disclosure of Their Addresses to the Public

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

 Mott v. City and County of Honolulu (ICA January 30, 2020)

Background. The Honolulu Police Department keeps a daily arrest log known as a blotter. The log includes the name of the arrestee and his or her address. For years, HPD would provide a requesting member of the public blotter information containing the address. In 2017, HPD changed its policy and started to disclose only the adult arrest log, which did not include the address. Karen Mott wrote to HPD seeking disclosure of the blotter with the address. The request was denied. Mott filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief and an order compelling disclosure of the addresses. The City moved to dismiss the complaint. The circuit court, with the Hon. Judge Gary W. B. Chang presiding, granted the motion. Mott appealed.

 

The Uniform Information Practices Act Balances Open Government Against Invasion of Privacy. The State seeks to “conduct[] government business as openly as possible . . .tempered by a recognition of the right of the people to privacy[.]” HRS § 92F-2. The Uniform Information Practices Act requires that “[e]xcept as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours.” HRS § 92F-11(b). Disclosure is not required when it “constitute[s] a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” HRS § 92F-13(1).

 

However, disclosure is not a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the individual.” “[O]nce a significant privacy interest is recognized, it must be balanced against the public interest in disclosure to determine whether disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Peer News LLC v. City & County of Honolulu, 138 Hawai'i 53, 68, 376 P.3d 1, 16 (2016).

 

Arrestees have a significant Privacy Interest in their Addresses. The ICA held that arrestees have a significant privacy interest in personal information such as their home addresses. The ICA relied on Peer News, which stated “there is no compelling public interest in the disclosure of . . . confidential personal information such as home addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and bank account information. Such information, if present in relevant records, must be redacted.” Id. at 73, 376 P.3d at 21. The ICA also noted that the Office of Information Practices has concurred with the HSC in several opinion letters. See OPI Op. Ltr. No. 89-16; OIP Op. Ltr. 96-04; OIP Op. Ltr. 99-06; OIP Op. Ltr. 07-07. The ICA affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Comments

Graham said…
Is the use of the word "Trump" a tongue in cheek choice?
November 2, 2020 at 4:38 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bath...
Read more

If you're going to set bail, it has to be reasonable and can't be excessive so $3.3 million won't work

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Carter (ICA March 6, 2024) Background. Samuel Carter was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. He was held in jail without bail. About four months later, Carter filed a motion for supervised release or, in the alternative, a motion to set bail. Carter argued that there had been no findings supporting the decision to hold him without bail. The prosecution opposed and attached a letter to the Circuit Court noting that there had been no bail report because of the no-bail determination. According to the pretrial services intake center, it would not assess Carter’s eligibility for supervised release unless and until the court sets bail first.   At the hearing on the motion, Carter asked that bail be set at $100,000. The prosecution objected and argued that there was a rebuttable presumption of detention, Carter posed a danger to the community, and there was a flight risk. The prosecution did maintain that even though he could be...
Read more

HSC doesn’t wait for Rule 40 to find defense counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Yuen (HSC August 20, 2024) Background. Charles Tung Ming Yuen was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately fifty feet from the O’Malley Gate just outside of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. Two vehicles were approaching the gate when one of the vehicle rear-ended the one in front of it. Military police came onto the scene and identified Yuen as the driver of the vehicle that cause the collision. They seized him and subjected him to standardized field sobriety tests. Then they held him and called the Honolulu Police Department to report a “possible DUI outside the gate.”   The collision, seizure of Yuen, and their investigation occurred outside of the base within the City and County of Honolulu. The police showed up and took over. They conducted their investigation, saw signs of intoxication, and arrested Yuen.   Yuen’s lawyer, Barry Sooalo, di...
Read more