their names and past and present addresses on applications that would be subject to disclosure via the Public Records Act). Finally, were we to assume that the City has standing to assert the constitutional claim, the City has failed to offer specific proof that disclosing the field interview cards would threaten the personal security and bodily integrity of certain interviewees, proof that is necessary to establish such a claim. See, e.g., Kallstrom, 136 F.3d at 1064 (stating that undercover officers had established a constitutional privacy interest in their personnel files by offering proof that release of the information in the files would "threaten[] the personal security and bodily integrity of the officers and their family members”); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc., 274 F.3d at 395 (<HOLDING>). 17 . Petitioners are referring to two letters
holding that disclosure of home addresses implicates privacy interests because although addresses are publicly available inclusion of addresses in the notification may expose offenders to harassment holding that plaintiffs alleged a credible threat of real and immediate harm stemming from the theft of a laptop containing their unencrypted personal data which included their names addresses and social security numbers holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra recognizing potential reversible error by disclosing defendants prior jury conviction holding that adult entertainers had established a constitutional privacy interest by offering proof that disclosing their names and current and past residential addresses would pose serious potential risks to their physical safety and wellbeing