Legal Opinion: GMP-0130

Index: 7.360, 7.370

Subject: FOIA Appeal: Source of Information

November 12, 1992

John F. Morrow, Esq.

Morrow, Alexander, Tash, Long & Black

3890 Vest Mill Road

Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27103-1302

Dear Mr. Morrow:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) appeal of September 8, 1992. Your client, Sharron H.

Daniels, by letter dated August 20, 1992, requested the name of

the individual who supplied information that she did not occupy

5722 Sentinel Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina as her personal

residence. Ms. Daniel\'s request was denied under Exemption 5 by

Barbara P. Nichols, Freedom of Information Officer, Greensboro,

North Carolina Office, in a letter dated August 25, 1992. The

withheld information consisted of handwritten notes which were

recorded at the time the allegation was verbally received in the

Greensboro Office.

I have determined to affirm the initial denial under

Exemptions 6 and 7(C),(D).

Exemption 7(D) authorizes withholding records or information

compiled for law enforcement purposes if the production of such

records or information could reasonably be expected to disclose

the identity of a confidential source. Entities which have been

found to qualify as confidential sources include citizens

providing unsolicited allegations of misconduct. Pope v. United

States, 599 F.2d 1383, 1386-87, (5th Cir. 1979).

In this instance, information has been brought to the

attention of the Department concerning certifications in your

client\'s loan application and closing under the FHA program.

Revealing the identity of the person would be contrary to a major

purpose of the exemption to encourage private citizens to furnish

controversial information to government agencies. Id. at 1387.

I have therefore determined to withhold the identity of the

individual under Exemption 7(D).

Exemptions 6 and 7(C) also apply to this case. Exemption

7(C) provides for the exemption of \"records or information

compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent

that the production of such law enforcement record or

information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . .\" Exemption 6

provides for the exemption of \"personnel and medical files and

similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.\"

To determine whether information is exempt from disclosure

under Exemption 6 as a \"clearly unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy\" and under Exemption 7(C) as an \"unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy,\" the interest of the general public in

disclosure must be balanced against the privacy rights of the

individual involved. Washington Post v. Department of Health and

Human Services, 690 F.2d 252, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Common Cause

v\. Ruff, 467 F. Supp. 941 (D.D.C. 1979). The public interest, in

the context of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), is the interest of the

overall public, not the interest of the individual seeking

records for his own benefit. Washington Post v. Department of

Health and Human Services, 690 F.2d 252, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

See also, Wine Hobby USA, Inc. v. IRS, 502 F.2d 133 (3rd Cir.

1974).

Individuals who provide information to the Government have a

strong interest in assuring that their identities are kept

private. Such individuals risk retaliation or violation of their

personal privacy if their identities are released. Moreover, the

public interest is served by the reporting of possible violations

of law. These considerations lead me to conclude that, under the

balancing tests of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), the personal privacy

interest of the individual is paramount in this case.

I have also determined, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. Section 15.21,

that the public interest in protecting confidential source

information and in assuring the personal privacy of individuals

militates against release of the withheld information at this

time.

Please be advised that you have the right to judicial review

of this determination under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4).

Very sincerely yours,

George L. Weidenfeller

Deputy General Counsel (Operations)