§92F-14 Significant privacy interest; examples.

691 words·~3 min read·/hi/92f-14

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(a)Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the individual.

(b)The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest:

(1)Information relating to medical, psychiatric, or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation, other than directory information while an individual is present at such facility;

(2)Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation;

(3)Information relating to eligibility for social services or welfare benefits or to the determination of benefit levels;

(4)Information in an agency's personnel file, or applications, nominations, recommendations, or proposals for public employment or appointment to a governmental position, except:

(A)Information disclosed under section 92F‑12(a)(14); and

(B)The following information related to employment misconduct that results in an employee's suspension or discharge:

(i)The name of the employee;

(ii)The nature of the employment related misconduct;

(iii)The agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct;

(iv)Findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(v)The disciplinary action taken by the agency;

when the following has occurred: the highest nonjudicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the employee or the employee's representative has concluded; a written decision sustaining the suspension or discharge has been issued after this procedure; and thirty calendar days have elapsed following the issuance of the decision or, for decisions involving county police department officers, ninety days have elapsed following the issuance of the decision;

(5)Information relating to an individual's nongovernmental employment history except as necessary to demonstrate compliance with requirements for a particular government position;

(6)Information describing an individual's finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness;

(7)Information compiled as part of an inquiry into an individual's fitness to be granted or to retain a license, except:

(A)The record of any proceeding resulting in the discipline of a licensee and the grounds for discipline;

(B)Information on the current place of employment and required insurance coverages of licensees; and

(C)The record of complaints including all dispositions;

(8)Information comprising a personal recommendation or evaluation;

(9)Social security numbers; and

(10)Information that if disclosed would create a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to an individual. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 191, §1; am L 1995, c 242, §1; am L 2004, c 92, §4; am L 2014, c 121, §2; am L 2015, c 140, §1; am L 2020, c 47, §3]

Attorney General Opinions

Board of education members may disclose reasons they voted as they did in executive session resulting in appointment of education superintendent; they cannot disclose information discussed in executive session if information is of the type listed in subsection

(b)without first determining to what extent disclosure is in public interest. Att. Gen. Op. 94-1.

Law Journals and Reviews

Driving into the Sunset: A Proposal for Mandatory Reporting to the DMV by Physicians Treating Unsafe Elderly Drivers. 25 UH L. Rev. 59.

Case Notes

Information that must be disclosed pursuant to clause (b)(4)(B) regarding a public employee's employment-related misconduct and resulting discipline not "highly personal and intimate information" and thus not within scope of Hawaii's constitutional right to privacy. 83 H. 378, 927 P.2d 386.

Where news organization requested disciplinary records of twelve Honolulu police department ("HPD") officers who were suspended for at least twenty days for various types of misconduct, the circuit court erred in holding that police officers have a "non-existent privacy interest" in their disciplinary suspension records and ordering HPD to disclose the records. Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act, as amended by Act 242, Session Laws of Hawaii 1995, demonstrates that police officers have a significant privacy interest in their disciplinary suspension records, and disclosure of the records is appropriate only when the public interest in access to the records outweighs this privacy interest. 138 H. 53, 376 P.3d 1 (2016).