## Facts

- Three Columbus Police Department undercover officers participated in a long-term investigation and federal prosecution of members of a violent gang known as the Short North Posse.
- The officers testified at the criminal trial of multiple gang defendants.
- During the criminal proceedings, defense counsel requested the officers’ personnel and pre-employment files from the City.
- The City produced the files under the Ohio Public Records Act, believing disclosure was required.
- The disclosed materials included highly personal identifying and financial information, such as home addresses, family-member identities and addresses, social security numbers, and bank-account information.
- Defense counsel obtained at least one officer’s file and appears to have distributed it to several gang defendants.
- The officers alleged the disclosures exposed them and their families to a serious risk of retaliation and physical harm by violent gang members.
- The officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages and injunctive relief, alleging violation of a constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether undercover officers have a substantive due process privacy interest in sensitive personal information in their personnel files when disclosure to violent criminals creates a serious risk of physical harm to the officers and their families.
2. Whether the City’s release of that information violates substantive due process unless the disclosure narrowly serves a compelling state interest.
3. Whether prospective relief is available, and if so, whether the proper remedy is a broad prohibition on future disclosure or a more limited injunction requiring advance notice before release.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the officers’ § 1983 damages claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the officers stated a substantive due process claim based on disclosure of highly sensitive information that materially increased the risk of serious bodily harm.
- The court held the City may not disclose such information absent a showing that disclosure narrowly serves a compelling state interest.
- The court declined to impose an immediate broad injunction barring all future releases as premature.
- The court approved limited injunctive relief requiring the City to provide notice to the officers before releasing the relevant information from their files.

## Legal Principles

- The substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause can protect against governmental disclosure of certain personal information where disclosure creates a serious risk to bodily security.
- When disclosure of government-held information materially increases the risk of physical harm, the affected individuals have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in preventing release.
- Government disclosure that implicates this interest is permissible only if the government shows the disclosure narrowly serves a compelling state interest.
- A state public-records obligation does not by itself justify releasing personal data when the release creates a substantial, particularized risk of serious physical harm.
- Equitable relief may be tailored to require advance notice of intended disclosure to allow affected individuals to seek protection or challenge release.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that releasing undercover officers’ sensitive personal and family-identifying information to violent criminal defendants implicated a substantive due process privacy interest tied to bodily security, requiring a compelling, narrowly tailored justification; it revived the officers’ damages claims and allowed limited prospective relief in the form of advance-notice requirements rather than an immediate blanket prohibition on future disclosure.


Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998)