Peer News LLC v. City and County of Honolulu.
138 Haw. 53
| Haw. | 2016Background
- Civil Beat requested personnel/discipline records for 12 Honolulu Police Department officers suspended (20+ days) for misconduct occurring 2003–2012; some requests sought names where grievance procedures had concluded and 30 days had elapsed.
- HPD denied the request under UIPA privacy exemptions; Civil Beat sued and moved for summary judgment; SHOPO intervened to defend nondisclosure.
- The circuit court granted Civil Beat’s motion, relying on this court’s earlier decision in SHOPO v. SPJ and an OIP opinion, concluding officers had no protected privacy interest in suspension records.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court reviewed whether Act 242 (1995) amended the UIPA to create a “significant privacy interest” in police suspension records and whether that interest must be balanced against the public interest.
- The Court held Act 242 did create a significant statutory privacy interest in suspension records (except for discharges), that this interest is broader than the constitutional privacy analysis in SHOPO v. SPJ, and that the UIPA requires balancing the officer’s privacy interest against the public interest.
- Because the trial court did not perform the required in camera, case-by-case balancing and the appellate record was factually limited, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded for in camera review to determine whether disclosure (or redaction) is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Civil Beat) | Defendant's Argument (SHOPO/HPD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police suspension records must be disclosed under UIPA | SHOPO v. SPJ eliminated officers’ constitutional privacy interest; UIPA disclosure standard follows that analysis so records should be disclosed | Act 242 created a statutory "significant privacy interest" for suspension records (except discharges) and precludes mandatory disclosure | Act 242 does create a significant statutory privacy interest; SHOPO v. SPJ is not dispositive because it applied an earlier UIPA version |
| Whether Act 242 foreclosed any further balancing (i.e., made suspension records per se confidential) | Even if statutory privacy exists, public interest in egregious misconduct outweighs privacy; prior balancing controls | Legislature intended to limit mandatory disclosure of suspensions and protect officer privacy; weighing was done by statute | UIPA’s text and history require courts to balance the statutory "significant privacy interest" against the public interest; Act 242 did not abolish judicial balancing |
| Whether OIP Opinion Letter No. 97‑01 (concluding SHOPO v. SPJ mandates disclosure despite Act 242) is controlling | Civil Beat relied on OIP deference to support disclosure | SHOPO argued OIP was correct historically | Court held OIP Opinion 97‑01 was palpably erroneous in its conclusion that SHOPO nullified Act 242’s protection |
| Whether SHOPO may invoke the "frustration of a legitimate government function" exception for HPD | N/A (Civil Beat) | SHOPO argued this exception applies to block disclosure | Only the agency (HPD) may assert HRS § 92F‑13(3); SHOPO, as intervenor, cannot raise that claim on HPD’s behalf |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Hawai‘i Org. of Police Officers v. Soc’y of Prof’l Journalists, 83 Hawai‘i 378, 927 P.2d 386 (Haw. 1996) (held earlier UIPA version and Article I, §6 analysis finding no constitutional privacy in certain police disciplinary records)
- Painting Indus. v. Alm, 69 Haw. 449, 746 P.2d 79 (Haw. 1987) (statutory privacy must be consistent with constitutional floor but legislature may provide broader protection)
- Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (Wash. 1988) (public accountability for police misconduct often outweighs privacy concerns)
- Tompkins v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 136 Conn. App. 496, 46 A.3d 291 (Conn. App. 2012) (public interest stronger for more egregious officer misconduct; relevance of oversight and investigative transparency)
- Rutland Herald v. City of Rutland, 195 Vt. 85, 84 A.3d 821 (Vt. 2013) (emphasized public interest in knowing how police supervise and address misconduct)