The mere possibility of identity theft is "insufficient to overcome the strong public interest in disclosure" of information about a person with a license to sell alcohol, the state Court of Appeals said in a decision released Tuesday.
The decision by the three-member panel of the District I Court of Appeals upholds an earlier ruling by former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Christopher Foley.
Robert Cronwell requested a copy of a liquor license application submitted by Prime Time Events, LLC through its agent, Nicholas Marking. The city supplied the application and an auxiliary questionnaire, but redacted Marking's personal phone number, personal email address, and birth date.
Cronwell tried again, requesting unredacted copies and an additional document. The city supplied that document, but again with a birth date redacted.
The city, in explaining the redactions, said that “we do not provide personally identifying information that can be employed for other purposes (such as procuring an absentee ballot in someone else’s name),” the appeals court said.
Cronwell went to court and Foley found that "under the open records balancing test, the City was not justified in redacting Marking’s personal phone number, personal email address, and date of birth," the panel wrote.
Glendale appealed, arguing in part that Foley misapplied the balancing test courts are required to use in open records cases. That test, the panel said, requires determining "whether permitting inspection would result in harm to the public interest which outweighs the legislative policy recognizing the public interest in allowing inspection.”
The release of the information, the city contended, "does not outweigh the identity theft concerns with revealing personal contact information and a person's date of birth that the City has identified."
The city also argued that disclosing the information could have a "chilling effect" related to liquor licenses.
The appellate panel disagreed.
"Wisconsin generally recognizes 'a strong public-policy interest favoring the inspection of public records,' and we consider this interest 'particularly significant' where a license to sell alcohol beverages is concerned," the panel said in its per curiam decision. Participating appellate judges were Maxine White, M. Joseph Donald and Pedro Colon.
PrimeTime and Marking, by submitting their application, consented to a level of inspection, the judges said.
State law requires liquor license holders or their agents to be of drinking age, to be without arrest or conviction records, and to have shown a fitness to sell alcohol.
"As a result of the nature of this case, we consider the public’s oversight of this governmental function in reviewing and issuing a license to sell alcohol beverages crucial and, in turn, we consider the public to have a unique interest in knowing the details of the applicants for a license to sell alcohol beverages that would allow the public to ensure that the application meets the requirements," the panel said.
Comentários