| Home | 用中文 | Espaņol |
 |
||
|
Enter your e-mail to receive our bi-weekly FLASH newsletter:
Search CFAC
  |
Supreme Court adds 'survivors privacy'
to list of FOIA disclosure exemptions
WASHINGTON (3/30/04) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected efforts to see
pictures taken at the scene of the death of the late Vince Foster, deputy counsel to the
Clinton White House in a decision that journalism organizations predicted would prevent
citizens and reporters from looking into suspicious deaths.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, adds "survivor's privacy" to the interests that can be protected under the privacy arm of the law enforcement exemption to the Freedom of Information Act. The Supreme Court decision reverses the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and dismisses a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles lawyer, Allan Favish who contended that the former Clinton advisor may have been murdered. News media groups had asked the court to reject government arguments that its own investigations precluded any further need for public oversight that might be served by disclosure of the photographs. The news media said that there is plainly a public interest in the investigation of the death of a public official who, as Foster, possessed information involving an ongoing investigation of high level administration officials. "The new requirement that requesters must show evidence of government impropriety before such records will be released will almost surely prevent reporters and other interested citizens from investigating suspicious deaths," said Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy Dalglish. "I don't know how you can expect requesters to prove a negative before they are entitled to a record under the Freedom of Information Act." According to a case syllabus released by the court, the opinion held that the Freedom of Information Act "recognizes surviving family members' right to personal privacy with respect to their close relative's death-scene images." A Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press news release said Justice Kennedy made clear that the decision "concerns only the privacy exemption embodied in the exemption that protects law enforcement records. It protects information in those records that 'could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.' He said that 'in marked contrast,' another broader FOIA exemption for personnel, medical and similar records calls for protection of "clearly unwarranted" intrusions on privacy. According to a Los Angeles Times story, Favish said he was disappointed by the decision. "It looks like the end of the case," he said, adding that the court ignored his evidence highlighting questions about the investigation. "There's no discussion of the evidence in their opinion, just a conclusion that there is no evidence. I don't see any justification for that conclusion." |
 Have a legal question?
Check out Asked & Answered first.
Chances are, we've already answered it. If
not, then proceed to CFAC's Legal
Hotline for help from top lawyers—free.
CFAC Archives:
News & Opinion
Access To Meetings Access To Records News Gathering Prop 59 CFAC Podcasts CFAC In The News Search CFAC
|
| Copyright © CFAC: California First Amendment Coalition. | ||