Opinion ID: 1723461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: common-law privacy

Text: Relying on our statement in Tobin, supra, that any right to prohibit disclosure must have a basis independent of the FOIA, [36] the Court of Appeals presumed that a common-law invasion of privacy would prevent the disclosure of documents requested under the FOIA. This presumption was erroneous because an applicable statute always surmounts a conflicting common-law rule. [37] Although the Legislature has provided scant guidance on the concept of privacy, [38] it has specified that only clearly unwarranted invasions of privacy would be exempted. [39] By using a higher standard, the Legislature permits disclosures of public records that are invasions of privacy, as long as that invasion of privacy is not clearly unwarranted. Therefore, an invasion of privacy that is less than clearly unwarranted cannot stand as an obstacle to disclosure. This fact underscores the logic of analyzing a reverse FOIA claim under the FOIA. If a court determines that the privacy exemption does not apply, no further analysis under invasion of privacy is necessary. After all, if an invasion of privacy does not satisfy the heightened clearly unwarranted standard under the privacy exemption, a lesser finding of invasion of privacy cannot serve as a basis to preclude disclosure because the FOIA, as a statute, governs regardless of whether there may have been a claim under common law. Thus, in a reverse FOIA action, a determination whether the FOIA requires disclosure of the requested documents should be the first step in an action challenging an FOIA request. A finding that the documents are public records under the FOIA, and no exemptions apply, requires that the documents be disclosed. [40] Additionally, a finding that the privacy exemption does not apply obviates the need for an analysis under the common law, because, irrespective of whether there was a common-law claim, the FOIA governs the resolution of the case. Therefore, Beaumont v. Brown, [41] which plaintiffs argue prevents the release of the requested documents under the common-law right of privacy, is overruled to the extent that it conflicts with the FOIA. Principles of common-law privacy do come into play when the court is determining whether information of a personal nature constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. [42] Because we have already concluded that the requested information does not satisfy the personal nature element of the FOIA, we do not need to address whether the request of that information is a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. [43]