Replies

You link to a legal opinion from New York about a Freedom of Information request where

'the request involved “copies of all state police reports related to the Sept. 23, 2006, homicide-suicide of Wendy and James Dirk at their home...” '

Some differences from the situation you are trying to equate it to:

1. The records requested are not the private vital statistics records, but police reports.
2. They fall under the Freedom of Information Law, which private vital statistics records do not.
3. The individuals involved are deceased.

You also omit an interesting part of the opinion, after the portion on "widely known to the public":

Second and perhaps most importantly, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law.

In other words, the most important point is the police must follow the Freedom of Information Law, except for those records excluded by law.

Find a judge who says "public interest" compels Hawaii's DOH to release information that is clearly protected by 338-18 (a) and (b). So far, despite many lawsuits, no judge has seen this your way.

1. Under the UIPA in Hawaii, criminal records fall under the same category vital records would presumably fall under in regards to records with a significant privacy interest (although the latter are NOT specifically mentioned in the UIPA): "Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law ..."

2. ALL state records fall under the UIPA, with exemptions listed for 'significant privacy interest,' except that those exemptions do not apply when public interest outweighs significant privacy. The one possible exemption here is part 92F-13, which says: "This part shall not require disclosure of: (4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure ..." which would apply to vital records under 338-18(b), however this rule does not PROHIBIT disclosure of such records, only that disclosure is not required. The question is why hide the records when there's no compelling reason??

3. Yes, the individuals are deceased, but the opinion letter says, "it is clear that there may be an interest in protecting privacy in consideration of the deceased," so there's no real difference from Obama's vital records.

You also omit an interesting part of the opinion, after the portion on "widely known to the public":

It's irrelevant. The UIPA doesn't specifically prohibit the release of vital records.

Find a judge who says "public interest" compels Hawaii's DOH to release information that is clearly protected by 338-18 (a) and (b). So far, despite many lawsuits, no judge has seen this your way.

We're not talking about judges trying to compel the DOH to release this information. Ideally this shouldn't reqire a court of law at all, unless Obama felt like he needed to sue the DOH for releasing his records. I've said the UIPA would PROTECT the DOH from releasing the records voluntarily. They have no compelling reason NOT to release the vital records as there is no privacy interest and the UIPA does NOT prohibit disclosures of records protected by other parts of state law.

Second, you're misstating 338-18, as it doesn't prohibit any specific information from disclosure, but provides rules for how it can be disclosed and otherwise limits access to the inspection of records and the release of CERTIFIED copies of records. Information in the records may be released under parts a (as authorized by "rules adopted by the department of health"), c, d (which gives statutory authority to the director of the DOH to release ANY information to the public she feels is appropriate), e and f.

Again, if the information is already public (as presented by Obama's jpg of an alleged COLB), there is no compelling LEGAL reason the DOH cannot confirm it.