The information which was released included the names of persons falsely accused of a crime, which is a violation of state law (read the law link). In addition, the medical information released was not only about the alleged victim, but also about his alleged perpetrators. The report also failed to protect the identity of minors. And it is not an issue of sympathizing with some one who filed a false police report, it is a matter of personal privacy. Also linked in the story you will note that city attorney Brig Smith had promised, after being under fire for months about the disclosure of an HIV status (which many still believe violated Michigan’s Public Health Code), that personal medical information would be redacted and not released to the public. That was two weeks before this police report was released under FOIA. HIPAA is not the issue. The issue is the exemption points in the FOIA law which clearly spell out information which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy should not be released. Do you want your medical information released to the public because you were a witness to an alleged crime? Do you want your address released? Do you want you children’s names, dates of birth, and other identifying information released to the public because they were with you when you witnessed a crime? I am all for open government, but I worry when open government goes from legitimate information releases to information which is clearly personal and has no actual bearing on a criminal case. That is the issue Chetly.

That's not saying this wasn't an error, but errors in the favor of openness are more tolerable than ones favoring secrecy, which is a plausible reason for Cox's ruling? FOIA has a provision protecting disclosure as an option even if “exempt” … only other laws would require non-disclosure in certain cases. One would have to closely look at HIPAA, etc. to determine if there is liability here.

And its hard to sympathize with a guy who filed a false police report when his information is disclosed., although this article isn't written clearly enough for me to be sure that's whose medical info. was involved.

That's not saying this wasn't an error, but errors in the favor of openness are more tolerable than ones favoring secrecy, which is a plausible reason for Cox's ruling? FOIA has a provision protecting disclosure as an option even if “exempt” … only other laws would require non-disclosure in certain cases. One would have to closely look at HIPAA, etc. to determine if there is liability here.

And its hard to sympathize with a guy who filed a false police report when his information is disclosed., although this article isn't written clearly enough for me to be sure that's whose medical info. was involved.

That's not saying this wasn't an error, but errors in the favor of openness are more tolerable than ones favoring secrecy, which is a plausible reason for Cox's ruling? FOIA has a provision protecting disclosure as an option even if “exempt” … only other laws would require non-disclosure in certain cases. One would have to closely look at HIPAA, etc. to determine if there is liability here.

And its hard to sympathize with a guy who filed a false police report when his information is disclosed., although this article isn't written clearly enough for me to be sure that's whose medical info. was involved.

But what in the world is Lansing doing? How far behind the times are they? They don't have the faintest clue about FOIA, HIPPA and other medical information protections? And what is Cox thinking? How can he say that releasing a person's HIV status without their written consent and without meeting any of the legal requirements of the public health code is NOT a violation? Moron.