Bill Description: House Bill 47 would amend Idaho's public records law to define "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 

Rating: 0

NOTE: The Senate amendment to House Bill 47 does not change our rating or substantively change our analysis.

Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?

House Bill 47 would amend Section 74-101, Idaho Code, which is the definitions section of Idaho's Public Records Act, to add a definition for "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

This term would be defined as "disclosure of information used to identify, locate, or harass a juvenile, a victim of an alleged crime of mass violence or domestic violence, or a victim of physical or sexual abuse; or disclosure where release of information is likely to violate legitimate and substantial privacy interests of the person identified when such interests are weighed against general public curiosity information." (The changes indicated were made by the Senate amendment.)

It would also add language clarifying that releasing "the name, age, sex, and hometown of any deceased person after notification of next-of-kin shall not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

It would appear this definition is intended to apply to an existing provision in Section 74-124, Idaho Code, which says, "Notwithstanding any statute or rule of court to the contrary, nothing in this chapter nor chapter 10, title 59, Idaho Code, shall be construed to require disclosure of investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes by a law enforcement agency, but such exemption from disclosure applies only to the extent that the production of such records would … constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

It should be noted here that the new definition appears only to apply to "investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes" and not to any other public records that may exist. 

This limitation is particularly problematic because right now, personally identifying information about individuals who communicate with constitutional officers about their concerns and experiences can be obtained and publicized by the media. 

Public records are supposed to provide transparency to the people about the actions of government. They are not supposed to reveal personal information about private individuals whose lives have become entangled with government or who wish to express an opinion on a matter of public concern. 

(+1)

Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?

It is troubling that the protection offered by House Bill 47 would be limited. It only prohibits the disclosure of personal information used to "identify, locate, or harass" certain individuals, namely "a juvenile, a victim of an alleged crime of mass violence or domestic violence, or a victim of physical or sexual abuse."

These people deserve to be protected from unwarranted invasions of their personal privacy, but so do all Idahoans. Laws should apply equally to all people and not carve out special protections just for one group or class of people. 

(-1)