Source: https://foia.wiki/wiki/Exemption_7%28C%29
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 01:52:45+00:00

Document:
Assuming the record in question is “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” an agency must also justify why its disclosure would implicate at least one of the six specified harms identified in Exemption 7. Exemption 7(C) concerns records that, if released, would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Like Exemption 6, Exemption 7(C) requires an agency to weigh the privacy interest in withholding records against the public interest in their release. For that reason, as one court has stated, “[t]he privacy inquiries under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) are ‘essentially the same.’” Agencies often invoke both Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in denying requests where law enforcement records are concerned.
Under 7(C), “[t]he preliminary question is whether” an individual’s interest in nondisclosure of the records is a “personal privacy” interest protected by the exemption. For purposes of this exemption — like Exemption 6 — the third party must have “more than a de minimis privacy interest” that would be compromised by the release of the requested material.
As with Exemption 6, the following factors — among others — may minimize or increase the privacy interest at issue.
Corporations: Corporations as an entity cannot claim a “personal privacy” right for the purposes of Exemption 7(C). However, individuals within a corporation may claim such a right personal to them.
Possibility of media contact: Courts have also recognized individuals’ privacy interest in avoiding unwanted media contact that could result from the release of records where the individuals are only incidentally connected to a high-profile criminal matter.
Public figures/officials: Public figures and public officials, such as government employees, “have a somewhat diminished privacy interest,” although they do not relinquish all such interests by virtue of their position. Generally, lower-level government employees are granted stronger privacy rights than high-level employees. If the records would reveal “official misconduct,” this is another factor that diminishes a government employee’s privacy interests.
The names and addresses of individuals from whom the U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized property where releasing this information “would automatically associate the individuals with . . . law enforcement proceedings and possibly cause comment, speculation and opprobrium” and could be used by others for solicitation purposes.
The identities of “informants, witnesses, and potential suspects” tied to a Secret Service investigation of computer fraud, as the court held that the individuals had an interest in avoiding being connected to possible criminal activity.
The names of employees and witnesses who participated in an Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation into whether a company had committed health and safety violations.
Mug shots. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have recognized a privacy interest in such photos.
The identities of individuals not previously publicly implicated in a public corruption investigation.
The docket information from cases of individuals who were convicted of federal offenses and were subject to warrantless cell phone tracking by the government in relation to the cases, as this information “was already publicly available” and therefore “would not compromise much more” than a de minimisprivacy interest.
General physical descriptions of two police officers who were fined by the U.S. Customs Service for smuggling steroids into the country, as 1) public officers have a diminished privacy interest, 2) this was not “particularly personal” information, and 3) the agency did not show that releasing this information would subject them to danger or harassment.
The identities of individuals "who have already been publicly identified--either through agency press releases or testimony in open court--as having been charged, convicted, or otherwise implicated" in connection with a public corruption investigation . . . ."
As with Exemption 6, Exemption 7(C) incorporates a balancing test that weights legitimate privacy interests against the public interest in the records.
Where disclosure will inform an ongoing public policy discussion] regarding the topic of the records, this will increase the public interest in release.
An internal investigation report from the Department of Homeland Security containing the identities of agents and third parties interviewed or mentioned in connection with an agency immigration raid that allegedly involved racial profiling, given the public interest in knowing whether such improprieties had occurred. To support the allegation of potential wrongdoing, the requester submitted affidavits from arrestees, declarations of ICE agents, and statements in an ICE report — all which suggested racial profiling had occurred.
Information on cases in which defendants were subject to warrantless cell phone tracking and were convicted or pleaded guilty at trial, as disclosure would contribute to the public discussion on the government’s use of such tracking. The court found a demonstrated public interest in the subject based on the “widespread media attention” to it, as well as the fact that the topic was then being addressed by courts and Congress.
Identifying information, including names, contained in records from a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division investigation of two Puerto Rican police officers’ killing of two political activists. The individuals — the subjects of the investigation, potential defendants in prosecutions, witnesses who provided information to the government, the translator at the related grand jury proceedings, and participating FBI agents — had a “substantial” privacy interest in avoiding “embarrassment and potentially more serious reputational harm,” harassment, or stigma from their association with the investigation. The court found this privacy interest outweighed the public interest asserted by the Puerto Rican Senate, which requested the records for “its general interest in ‘getting to the bottom of’” the incident.
↑ Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 598 F.Supp.2d 93, 96 n.1 (D.D.C. 2009).
↑ Prison Legal News v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 628 F.3d 1243, 1247 n.4 (10th Cir. 2011).
↑ U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 762 (1989).
↑ Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 11-754(GK), 2012 WL 45499 at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2012); Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
↑ Associated Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 554 F.3d 274, 286 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 176-77 (1991)).
↑ Bast v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 665 F.2d 1251, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
↑ F.C.C. v. AT&T Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (2011).
↑ L'ahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 3493 (2010).
↑ Am. Civil Liberties Union, 655 F.3d at 12.
↑ Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 757, 763-64.
↑ Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash., 2012 WL 45499 at *6.
↑ Forest Serv. Emps. for Envt’l Ethics, 524 F.3d at 1025-26.
↑ Lissner v. U.S. Customs Serv., 241 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001).
↑ Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
↑ Favish, 541 U.S. at 170.
↑ Davin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 60 F.3d 1043, 1058 (3d Cir. 1995).
↑ King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 210, 226, 233-34 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
↑ Seized Property Recovery Corp. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 502 F.Supp.2d 50, 57-8 (D.D.C. 2007).
↑ Computer Prof’ls for Soc. Responsibility v. U.S. Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
↑ Cuccaro v. Sec’ty of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 359-60 (3d Cir. 1985).
↑ " Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Justice", 829 F.3d 478, 485 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom., 137 S. Ct. 2158 (2017).
↑ World Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 672 F.3d 825, 831-32 (10th Cir. 2012).
↑ Karantsalis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 635 F.3d 497, 501 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1141 (2012).
↑ "SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC", 926 F.2d 1197, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
↑ Baltimore Sun v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 131 F.Supp.2d 725, 729 (D. Md. 2001).
↑ Am. Civil Liberties Union, 655 F.3d at 11-12.
↑ United Am. Fin., Inc. v. Potter, 667 F.Supp.2d 49, 60, 63-64 (D.D.C. 2009).
↑ Lissner, 241 F.3d at 1222-24.
↑ "Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Justice", 854 F.3d 675, 683 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
↑ Favish, 541 U.S. at 172.
↑ U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 497 (1994) (quoting Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 773).
↑ See Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 10-1264, 2011 WL 288684 at *3-4 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011).
↑ Favish, 541 U.S. at 174.
↑ Casa de Maryland, Inc., 2011 WL 288684 at *3-4.
↑ Stern, 737 F.2d at 93-4.
↑ Castaneda v. United States, 757 F.2d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 1985).
↑ Bartko v. United States Dep't of Justice, 898 F.3d 51, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
↑ Id. at 69-70 (citation omitted).
↑ Manna v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 51 F.3d 1158, 1166 (3d Cir. 1995).
↑ Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 577-78, 588 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
↑ Associated Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 554 F.3d 274, 287 (2d Cir. 2009).
↑ Fitzgibbon v. U.S. Secret Serv., 747 F.Supp. 51, 54, 59 (D.D.C. 1990).
↑ Sikes v. United States Dep't of Navy, 896 F.3d 1227, 1238 (11th Cir. 2018).
↑ Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 876 F.3d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
↑ Tuffly v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 870 F.3d 1086, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Tuffly v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. CV-15-00067-PHX-ROS, 2016 WL 10646307, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2016).
This page was last edited on 16 November 2018, at 15:08.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.