7(1)(c)

FOIA

Personal privacy

Personal privacy (records whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)

Read the full statute text on /statutes →

19 upheld (no violation found) · 72 rejected (violation found) · 17 partial violation · 8 closed / insufficient info / other, out of 116 documents.

Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(c)

Section 7(1)(c) exempts personal information whose disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The decisions treat it as a narrow exemption that requires balancing the individual's privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure, with the public body bearing the burden to justify withholding.

In these decisions the Public Access Counselor generally rejected broad privacy claims and found violations. Termination and separation letters, disciplinary and misconduct records, officer names, candidate applications, and police and jail incident reports were ordered disclosed where the public interest outweighed privacy. Redactions were allowed only for highly sensitive details. Denial was upheld only where records concerned an alleged sexual offense against a minor.

At a glance: 116 documents from 2012 to 2026(42 binding opinions, 74 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(b) (Private information) (61); 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials) (20); 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version) (19); 7(1)(d)(iv) (Would disclose a confidential source or informant) (11); 7(1)(d) (Law-enforcement/administrative-proceeding records) (9).

Recurring issues

Public bodies withheld termination or separation letters of public employees as a privacy invasion. (A termination letter for a public employee, A police officer's separation records, A mayor's termination letter to a village clerk)
Police and jail incident reports were withheld in full to protect victim or detainee privacy. (Incident reports on restraint chair use at a county jail, Police reports on a missing person's death, Police reports of a teacher's arrest for crimes against a student)
Names and identifying details were redacted from employee misconduct, disciplinary, and attendance records. (Disciplinary records of a city employee, Names of employees in misconduct allegations, Police employee attendance records)
Applications, emails, and internal letters related to public employment or public business were claimed to be personal or private. (An outgoing police chief's email to staff on policies, Applications for a village board vacancy, A letter requesting a vote of no confidence)

Practical points

A public body should not withhold an entire termination letter, disciplinary file, or incident report on privacy grounds without showing disclosure would be clearly unwarranted.
A requester seeking records about public employees or police conduct can point to the public interest in oversight as weighing against privacy withholding.
A public body considering redactions should limit them to highly sensitive personal details rather than names, employment actions, or addresses tied to public duties.

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.

7(1)(c)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(c)

Recurring issues

Practical points

All 116 documents citing 7(1)(c)