b. Examples of Where Privacy Interest Recognized/Not Recognized

Courts have recognized a privacy interest under Exemption 7(C) for information/records such as:

• 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.⁸⁸

• 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.⁸⁹

• 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.⁹⁰

• Mug shots, in some jurisdictions. Circuit courts of appeal are divided on whether mug shots carry a privacy interest. While the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th⁹¹ and 11th⁹² Circuits have recognized a privacy interest in such photos, the 6th Circuit has held that no such privacy rights are implicated by their release.⁹³ Therefore, in requesting federal mug shots from the U.S. Marshals Service, you should make your request from within the geographic bounds of the 6th circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

In contrast, courts have recognized minimal or no Exemption 7(C) privacy interest in records such as:

• The names and addresses of individuals who purchased property from the government that had been seized by federal law enforcement agencies, as the purchasers “voluntarily cho[se] to participate in the purchase of property from the United States government in a wholly legal commercial transaction,” and therefore had “little to fear in the way of ‘harassment, annoyance, or embarrassment.’”⁹⁴

• 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.⁹⁵

• The names of the investigators and postal inspectors involved in a U.S. Postal Service investigation involving some agency employees, as the agency failed to provide factual evidence to support its claim that the release of the names in that case could lead to “harassment, intimidation, or physical harm.”⁹⁶

• 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.⁹⁷

If no privacy interest is found to exist, a minimal public interest should warrant disclosure in any balancing. Even if a significant privacy interest is found, you should still present arguments that they are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.