as distinguished from a risk that affects the public at large.[ ] Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1066 (6th Cir.1998). At the time Defendants adopted the alleged policies and customs about which Plaintiffs complain, decedent was not an identifiable victim. Plaintiffs acknowledge these policies and customs were “longstanding” and had been in effect “for years.” Thus, they were not aimed at decedent directly, and did not pose a threat of immediate and proximate harm to him. Rather they “presented a threat of an indefinite range and duration.” Ruiz, 299 F.3d at 1183. To be sure, Defendants’ policies and customs did not increase the danger to the public at large in any real sense, but rather to a defined group, namely, patients in the EMU. See Kallstrom, 136 F.3d at 1067 (<HOLDING>). But this does not undermine our analysis. The
holding claim is cognizable holding a citys policy of freely releasing information from undercover officers personnel files created a constitutionally cognizable special danger holding claim is not cognizable holding that personnel records or conduct investigative records regarding police officers are exempt from disclosure under virginias freedom of information act which exempts personnel records from disclosure holding that disclosure of information contained in undercover officers personnel files violated the officers privacy interest in preserving their lives and personal security