[p195]
I. Introduction
Since its enactment in 1966,[1] the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has presented a conflict in implementation between Congress’s clear desire to open government action to the light of public scrutiny, [2] and [p196] administrative agencies’ desire to keep information private. [3] The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently weighed these interests as they applied to firearm registration information, which contains personal data about gun owners.[4] In the instant case,[5] Appellee desired information from Appellant’s firearm registration databases,[6] to further Appellee’s nuisance action against gun manufacturers. [7] Appellant refused to disclose the requested information in full pursuant to FOIA’s statutory exemptions, including exemption 6, which provided for the protection of personnel, [p197] medical, and similar files. [8] Instead, Appellant released some of the requested information, but deleted a significant portion from the documents, [9] as provided for in the FOIA when the exempt data can be readily segregated from the non-exempt data. [10] Appellee sued for enforcement of the FOIA provisions in federal district court.[11] The instant court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, [12] because the instant court determined the requested information did not fit under any of the FOIA exemptions. [13] The circuit court HELD that the personal information sought by Appellee did not fall under any FOIA exemptions and, therefore, had to be disclosed in full.[14]
II. The Balance of Privacy Rights and the Public’s Right to Know
A. The Freedom of Information Act
Beginning in 1966, in an effort to open government action to public scrutiny, the Administrative Procedure Act contained the precursor to the FOIA as section 552. [15] However, under the original interpretation of the statute, agencies withheld more information than they released. [16] Agencies [p198] only released information to a very limited group of people, [17] and did not release information about government functions if the functions required secrecy to protect the public interest.[18]
After the failure of the original statute, Congress passed an improved FOIA in 1966. [19] The new Act required agencies to allow the public to inspect and to copy all records unless they fell under one of nine exclusive exempt categories.[20] In order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, the statute also made specific provision for the redaction of information that identified individuals. [21] Even if the requested information fit one of the exempt categories, the agency had to release the documents after deletion of the exempted material if the material could be reasonably separated from the non-exempt material.[22] This deletion provision allowed the government to function in the open and protected personal information not germane to government functions.[23]
B. Department of the Air Force v. Rose
The U.S. Supreme Court first used the redaction provision of the FOIA to release case summaries of honor code hearings at the Air Force Academy. [24] The Court found the case summaries fit exemption 6 of the [p199] FOIA as similar files because the Academy did not explicitly regard the summaries as personnel files, and although the summaries did not contain as much information as a personnel file, their disclosure nevertheless implicated privacy.[25] The Court next examined whether the release of the documents constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.[26] The Court found that the release of information with personal details constituted an invasion because the information had the ability to expose the disciplined men to harm. [27] However, respondents had not requested the information in full; rather they specifically asked for the deletion of personal information.[28] The Court determined both that the Academy could delete the personal information and that the data sought directly contributed to public understanding and evaluation of government procedures. Therefore, the Academy should have disclosed the information as long as deletion sufficiently protected personal privacy.[29]
C. Department of State v. Washington Post Co.
The U.S. Supreme Court visited exemption 6 again in U.S. Department of State v. Washington Post Co.[30] The Post requested information to indicate whether certain Iranian nationals held valid U.S. passports. [31] The Court determined the requested information did not constitute either a personnel or a medical file, and thus had to constitute a similar file for exemption 6 to apply. [32] The Court recognized Congress had not [p200] specifically defined the term “similar file,” but Congress had indicated that exemption 6 applied generally and it had further stated that protection of personal data was a primary legislative goal. [33] Additionally, the Court found that if released, the requested information could not be identifiable with a specific individual. [34] The citizenship information at issue contained data both normally found in a personnel file and identifiable with an individual.[35]
D. U.S. Department of Defense v. FLRA
The U.S. Supreme Court most recently visited exemption 6 disclosure in U.S. Department of Defense v. FLRA.[36] The Court withheld home addresses of government employees requested by union representatives. [37] Since the addresses clearly constituted a personnel file, the Court balanced the public interest in disclosure against the interests of the employees in privacy.[38] The Court determined that the only public interest applicable to the balancing test was the extent that the disclosure aided the public in understanding government functions. [39] Finally, the proposed use of the information could not determine whether an invasion of privacy existed. [40] The employees had at least a nontrivial privacy interest in their home addresses,[41] and the release of the addresses would not add to the public’s [p201] knowledge about government functions.[42] Therefore, the lack of public interest in the disclosure of the information did not outweigh the employees’ personal privacy interests. [43] Also, the government had provided the union with alternative means to access employees,[44] and the unions could use alternative means to find employee addresses.[45]
III. City of Chicago v. Department of Treasury
In the instant case,[46] the Seventh Circuit dismissed the statutory redaction provision,[47] and found permissible the release of all personal information about firearm owners to the City of Chicago.[48] The instant court determined the information requested did not constitute a similar file under exemption 6. [49] Thus, all the requested information could be released without any redaction of personal details.[50]
The City of Chicago had an ordinance which banned the possession of most firearms within the city limits.[51] In 1998, the City filed a nuisance action against gun manufacturers, dealers, and distributors in Illinois state court.[52] The suit alleged the firearm industry intentionally marketed their products within the City to people susceptible to buy and to use firearms.[53] The City filed a FOIA request in 2000 with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for information from two of its databases — the Trace Database and the Multiple Sales Database for the City to determine local and nationwide gun distribution patterns. [54] The ATF released some of the information to the City, but withheld all names and [p202] addresses, amongst other information, to protect personal privacy. [55] The ATF claimed the information was protected from disclosure under two pertinent FOIA exemptions — 6 and 7(c).[56]
The instant court determined the information did not constitute a personnel or a medical file, and thus analyzed the information under the similar files provision of exemption 6.[57] The instant court found the information did not constitute a similar file because it did not contain the type of sensitive information normally found in such a file. [58] Instead, the instant court found gun buyers did not have any privacy interest when they purchased a gun, [59] and the information contained in the files would not create a negative impact on the lives of gun owners. [60] Thus the instant court ordered the release of the information in full under exemption 6.[61]
Under the exemption 7(c) analysis, the instant court used the U.S. Supreme Court’s balancing test and determined release of the requested information in full was proper under the FOIA.[62] The instant court again found release did not implicate privacy rights because a firearm purchase did not constitute a private transaction.[63] Additionally, the instant court determined the public interest in the furtherance of the City of Chicago’s nuisance action outweighed any private interest in disclosure. [64] Finally, the release conformed to the purposes of the FOIA because it allowed the public to evaluate the ATF’s efficiency in the performance of its congressional mandate. [65] [p203]
IV. The Similar Files Provision and the Possibility of Redaction
As the instant court acknowledges in its opinion, [66] Congress passed the FOIA to open government action to public inspection so that citizens can understand government functions and make informed decisions when they elect representatives. [67] The release of information that pertains to particular individuals and interferes with their privacy interests contradicts the purposes behind the FOIA.[68] When information helps the public understand government functions, but also contains personal information that does not aid the public, the FOIA allows the deletion of the personal information from the remainder of the documents released.[69]
The information contained in the multiple sales and trace databases constitutes the same type of data contained in personnel files. [70] This information includes the address and date and place of birth of individuals.[71] Thus, the database information comprises a similar file for purposes of the FOIA. Therefore, the public and private interests involved must be balanced under the test in Department of Defense v. FLRA.[72]
Although a high amount of regulation attends the purchase, sale, and distribution of firearms,[73] the release of ownership information in the instant case cuts directly against the FOIA’s purpose to exempt material from disclosure that amounts to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [74] The ATF has the statutory authority to track both legal and illegal gun movements and to determine the timing and substance of new regulations.[75] Information relevant to this duty falls within the FOIA’s disclosure requirements. [76] [p204]
The information contained in both the Multiple Sales and Trace Databases serves the public interest.[77] Firearm distributors have the duty to disclose multiple sales to the ATF.[78] This information allows the public to evaluate whether the ATF responds with regulations to problems involving multiple gun purchases.[79] The information in the Trace Database indicates to what extent the ATF locates the end user of a firearm and to what extent the ATF determines which gun distributors or manufacturers are not following proper recordkeeping procedures. [80] Therefore, a public interest exists in the disclosure of the information.[81]
The instant court does not recognize any privacy interest in the purchase of a firearm and therefore determines no privacy interest exists in the release of the requested information because gun owners have notice that regulating agencies receive their personal information.[82] However, while government agencies demand personal information in order to make a firearm purchase, the FOIA does not require disclosure of the information to the public. [83] The information at issue in the instant case is substantially similar to the citizenship information at issue in Washington Post,[84] because to receive a passport, applicants must turn over personal information to the government. [85] The same circumstances apply in the instant case because gun purchasers are required to turn over the requested information to obtain a firearm.[86] In addition, the information constitutes a similar file because it is as personal as data contained in a personnel file,[87] and the database information contains names and addresses of individuals;[88] this makes the information easily identifiable with a particular individual. Finally, release of the information to the City of Chicago requires release to any member of the public who requests the [p205] information; [89] these releases leave firearm owners open to a deluge of unwanted solicitations at their home, a location not to be disturbed.[90]
The information in both databases serves the public interest, but it also clearly implicates privacy. Since one interest does not substantially outweigh the other, the use of the redaction provision in the statute provides both interests an opportunity to be honored without sacrificing either personal privacy or the public’s interest. [91] The public gains knowledge about the ATF’s efficiency from the disclosure of only the manufacturer and model number of the guns distributed and the zip code of the purchasers, and furthermore, personal information is protected by deletion of the other data. Thus, deletion serves both the FOIA’s purposes: to protect individualized information and to release needed documents for public scrutiny of government functions.[92] Additionally, the City of Chicago can effectively pursue its negligence action against the firearm industry because the City only needs the undeleted information to determine whether the industry has created a nuisance.
V. Conclusion
The City of Chicago’s desire to prosecute its civil action does not outweigh the individual gun owner’s privacy interest in the release of personal data. The Seventh Circuit clearly desires to stay true to the purposes of the FOIA as evidenced by the order for full disclosure of the requested information. [93] However, the circuit court should have more seriously considered the individual’s privacy interest. Once an individual exercises his right to own a firearm,[94] he has not given away his personal privacy protections wholesale. The FOIA expressly provides that agencies and courts take personal privacy interests into account, not only for government employees, but for all citizens.[95] In a highly regulated society where government has information about nearly all aspects of an individual’s life, the populace must have faith that there exists a [p206] mechanism to restrict from disclosure information such as home addresses, phone numbers, credit ratings, bank account numbers, and social security numbers, regardless of the reason for which the requesting parties intend to use the information. The deletion provision of the FOIA provides this solution: it deletes personal details from documents and still provides the heart of the information sought by the requester.[96]