Lexplug logoLexplug

Officer Melissa Kallstrom v. City of Columbus

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
136 F.3d 1055 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a privacy interest in certain personal information held by the government, and the government's disclosure of that information is unconstitutional if it creates a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.


Facts:

  • Melissa Kallstrom, Thomas Coelho, and Gary Householder were undercover police officers for the Columbus Police Department.
  • The officers participated in a major drug conspiracy investigation into the Short North Posse, a violent gang.
  • All three officers testified in court during the criminal prosecution of forty-one members of the gang.
  • During the trial, defense counsel for the gang members requested and received Officer Kallstrom's personnel file from the City of Columbus, which was then passed on to several of the gang members.
  • The officers' personnel files contained their addresses, phone numbers, family members' names and addresses, social security numbers, banking information, and copies of their driver's licenses.
  • The release of this information created a serious risk to the personal safety of the officers and their families, given the gang's known propensity for violence and intimidation.
  • The City had previously assured the officers that the personal information in their files would be held in strict confidence.
  • Officer Coelho's file was also released to a separate organization, Police Officers for Equal Rights, that was investigating hiring practices.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs Kallstrom, Coelho, and Householder sued the City of Columbus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  • The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and an injunction to prevent the City from releasing their personal information.
  • The district court initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the City from releasing certain personal data.
  • Upon further review, the district court concluded that Sixth Circuit precedent did not recognize a general constitutional right to privacy that would prevent the government from releasing personal information.
  • The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for preliminary and permanent injunctions and entered a final judgment in favor of the City of Columbus.
  • The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal of their constitutional claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the City of Columbus's release of personal information from undercover police officers' personnel files, which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to the officers and their families, violate the officers' constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?


Opinions:

Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge.

Yes. The City of Columbus's release of the officers' personal information violates their constitutional right to privacy. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a fundamental liberty interest in personal security and bodily integrity. When the government's disclosure of private information creates a substantial risk of serious bodily harm, as it did here by giving the officers' information to members of a violent gang, that fundamental interest is implicated. Such government action is subject to strict scrutiny and will only be upheld if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Although the City's compliance with Ohio’s Public Records Act serves the public interest of government accountability, releasing the officers' sensitive information to criminal defendants is not narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose. Furthermore, the City is liable under a 'state-created-danger' theory, as its affirmative act of releasing the files greatly increased the risk of harm to the officers from private actors.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that the constitutional right to informational privacy, while not absolute, is fundamental when its breach creates a tangible threat of physical harm. It provides a key precedent for limiting public access to government records where disclosure would endanger individuals, particularly law enforcement. The ruling solidifies the 'state-created-danger' doctrine in the Sixth Circuit, clarifying that a government entity can be held liable under § 1983 for affirmative acts that make a specific citizen more vulnerable to violence from private parties. This holding has significant implications for how government agencies must handle sensitive employee data and balance public records laws against the constitutional right to personal security.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Officer Melissa Kallstrom v. City of Columbus (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"