Can a Louisiana state employee ask the Ethics Board to hide their home address on a public financial disclosure?

Plain-English summary

The governor's office asked whether the Louisiana Board of Ethics had to keep a state employee's home address confidential on a required financial disclosure when the employee requested privacy. The attorney general said the board should redact the address on request, even though the disclosure itself was a public record.

The opinion relied on the Louisiana Constitution's privacy protection. It reasoned that state employees reasonably expect privacy in home addresses and that disclosure of an address has little value for assessing their public duties. It also cited statutes directing the board to exclude legally confidential information from publication. The office rejected the board's narrower view that the public-records provision concerning personnel files meant home addresses on financial disclosures had to remain public.

What this means for you

State employees filing disclosures

The opinion said an employee who requests confidentiality of a home address on a financial disclosure should have that address redacted by the Board of Ethics. Its answer focused on home addresses, not a blanket exemption for the rest of the disclosure.

Board of Ethics staff

The office treated the disclosure as a public record while concluding that the home-address field should be kept confidential at the employee's request. It based that conclusion on constitutional privacy and statutory duties to withhold confidential material.

Public records requesters

The opinion said a public financial disclosure could be released without revealing the employee's home address after a confidentiality request. It distinguished the public interest in financial transparency from the limited relevance of a private residence to the employee's public duties.

Common questions

Q: Is a state employee's financial disclosure a public record in Louisiana?
A: The opinion said yes, while also concluding that the employee's home address should be redacted when confidentiality was requested.

Q: Can the Ethics Board refuse redaction because the address is outside a personnel file?
A: The attorney general said no on that reasoning. It treated constitutional privacy protection and the board's duty to exclude confidential information as extending to the requested address on a financial disclosure.

Q: Did the opinion make all financial disclosure information private?
A: No. Its conclusion concerned a state employee's home address on the filing when the employee requested confidentiality.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion described financial disclosures filed under Louisiana ethics laws as public records under La. R.S. 42:1124(E). It then weighed the employee's privacy interest in a home address against the public's interest in that particular field. The office discussed La. R.S. 44:11(A)(1)'s protection of employee contact information in personnel records but did not treat that as the sole possible basis for privacy. It also cited the Board of Ethics publication provisions that exclude information confidential by law. That combination supported its redaction conclusion.

Citations and references

• La. R.S. 42:1124(E) (financial disclosures as public records)
• La. R.S. 44:11(A)(1) (employee contact information provision discussed)
• La. Const. art. I, § 5 (constitutional privacy provision quoted)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/24-0069

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. BOx 94005
BATON ROUGE, L
70804-9005

Liz MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 6, 2024
OPINION 24-0069

    Emily Andrews                          so-c          PUBLIC RECORDS
    Special Counsel                        La. Const. art. I, § 5         La. R.S. 42:1158
    Office of the Governor                 La. R.S. 42:1115.2             La. R.S. 42:1159

La. R.S. 42:1124
La. R.S. 44:1 etseq.
P 0 Box 94004

• .
  La. R.S.42:1124.2.1
  La. R.S. 44:11(A)(1)
  Baton Rouge, LA 70804
  The Louisiana Board of Ethics should redact home address from financial disclosures when requested by a state employee.
  Dear Ms. Andrews:

You have asked for an opinion addressing whether home addresses of state employees listed in financial disclosures filed pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1115.2, 42:1124.2.1, and 42:1 124 must be redacted when the employee requests that his or her home address be kept confidential.

Your opinion indicates and the statutes cited affirm that state employees are required to file financial disclosures under certain circumstances with the Board of Ethics pursuant to La. R.S. 42:1115.2, 42:1124.2.1, and 42:1124. These financial records are public records pursuantto La. R.S. 42:1124(E).

Answer: Forthe reasons that follow, it is the opinion ofthis office thatthe home addresses of state employees contained in financial disclosures filed pursuant to the relevant statutes must be kept confidential if requested by the state employee.

Article I, Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution ensures that “every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy.” The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that the right to privacy embodied in Louisiana Const. art. I § 5, protects against any “unreasonable” invasions of privacy and exempts certain information from production under the Public Records Act. See Shane v. Parish ofJefferson, I 4-2225 (La.
12/8/15), 209 So.3d 726, 741. Louisiana’s constitutional right to privacy has been described as “the right to be ‘let alone,’. and to be free from ‘unnecessary public .

scrutiny.” DeSalvo v. State, 624 So.2d 897, 901 (La.1993).

When the content of a public record is at issue on privacy grounds, the courts require, first, the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy against the disclosure of the information before it can be withheld. Beckett v. Serpas, 2012-1349 (La. App. 4 Cir.
3/20/13), 112 So. 3d 348, 351. Public employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home addresses. In La. R.S. 42:11, the legislature recognized this interest by granting their home address and phone number a specific exemption in the public records statutes. Further, upon employment with the State, public employees are

Page 2

OPINION 24-0069
Ms. Emily Andrews
Page 2

presented with a form to exercise their right to the privacy with respect to their home address and telephone number by designating that it remain confidential.

Once a reasonable expectation of privacy is identified, Article I, Section 5 has a second component that balances the privacy interest against the need for public access to that particular information. See Broderick v. State, Dep’t ofEnv’t Quality, 2000-01 56 (La. App. I Cir. 5/1 2/00), 761 So. 2d 71 3. The home address of a public servant has minimal if any value to the public in relation to the employee’s public duties. And where the employee hastaken additional stepsto maintain the confidentiality ofthat information, the employee has personally demonstrated an enhanced interest in asserting their own right to privacy.

The public’s interest in a home address is vastly outweighed by the employee’s personal interest in protecting his or her privacy. State employees exercise duties that can arouse discontent and grievance. In some instances, public employees and their families have been targeted for violence. See Opinion, My Son Was Killed Because I’m a Federal Judge, The New York Times, Dec. 8, 2020 (describing an attack at the home of federal district court judge Esther Salas by a disgruntled litigant that resulted in her son’s death and critically injured her husband who had answered a knock at the front door.) The home address and personal phone number of a public employee is not relevant to an employee’s public duties. Virtually every employee has a public agency address related to theirjob and phone number for that agency.

The intent of financial disclosures is to provide transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest and financial integrity, not to expose state employees to unnecessary risks. Therefore, protecting home addresses does not compromise the integrity of financial disclosures.

This conclusion is supported in thejurisprudence. In Bd. ofEthics MatterofSneed, 2012- 1849 (La. App. I Cir. 10/7/13), the First Circuit found a home address with personal financial information to be protected. The Court observed, “[o]ur court has previously found that society at large is prepared to recognize as reasonable an expectation of privacy in detailed personal financial information when coupled with names and home addresses,” citing Angelo lafrate Const., L.L.C. v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 2003-0892 (La. App. I Cir. 5/14/04), 879 So. 2d 250, 260.

The Louisiana Ethics Board asserts in its memorandum to this office that La. R.S. 44:11 only permits redaction of home addresses from personnel records and therefore does not extend to financial disclosures. This position overlooks the broader statutory and constitutional framework. Louisiana Revised Statute 44:1 1 embodies the legislature’s intent to protect personal information due to the nature of public service. This intent is further supported by the constitutional right to privacy, which applies to unreasonable invasions of privacy beyond the specific context of personnel records. Further, La. R.S. 42:1158(C) and 42:1159(D) direct the Louisiana Board of Ethics to exclude from publication any “material or information which is confidential as provided by law.” The Louisiana Ethics Board, in redacting home addresses from financial disclosures upon request, would be acting in compliance of both the statute and constitutional protections.

Page 3

OPINION 24-0069
Ms. Emily Andrews
Page 3

Considering the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that the Louisiana Board of Ethics should redact home address from financial disclosures when requested by a state employee.

We trust this adequately responds to your request. However, if our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

With best regards,

LIZ MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENE L

BY: dãA
Amanda M. LaGroue
Assistant Attorney General

LM:AML