7(1)(d)(vi)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(d)(vi)

Section 7(1)(d)(vi) applies where disclosure of law enforcement-related records would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or others. The question in these matters is whether release of names, reports, or other operational records creates that safety risk.

In the decisions provided, the Public Access Bureau sustained violations where public bodies relied on this exemption without meeting their burden of proof. It rejected withholding of entire police reports mentioning a requester, rejection of a request for names of deputies serving in a dual role based on a general claim of danger, and denial of toll records where the body did not show by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would create the claimed risk.

At a glance: 5 documents(0 binding opinions, 5 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(b) (Private information) (3); 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (3); 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act) (1); 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version) (1); 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings) (1).

Recurring issues

• A police department withheld in their entireties all reports mentioning the requester under privacy and law enforcement exemptions including endangerment to safety. (Police reports naming the requester)
• A sheriff's office withheld names of deputies who also serve as U.S. Marshals on the ground that disclosure would endanger the officers. (A list of cross-designated sheriff's deputies)
• A public body denied a request for I-Pass records relating to a specific person under several exemptions including endangerment without meeting its burden of proof. (I-Pass transponder and license plate data for an individual)

Practical points

• A public body invoking this exemption was found in violation when it offered only a general claim of danger without specific facts showing how disclosure would endanger life or safety.
• A public body was found in violation for withholding entire police reports when it did not show the exemption applied to the records in full.
• A denial under this exemption was found improper where the public body did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt.

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