With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to privacy in the country. Mont. Const. Art. II, Sec. 10. Montana’s treatment of privacy rights is more strict than that offered by the Federal Constitution. Montana Human Rights Division v. City of Billings (1982), 199 Mont. 434, 439, 649 P.2d 1283, 1286. It is against this constitutional backdrop that we view the case at bar. Burns, 830 P.2d at 1320 (citations omitted). We affirmed the district court’s holding that, under the circumstances of the case, the State could not show a compelling interest to gain access to Bums’personnel files. Burns, 830 P.2d at 1322. But see Montana Human Rights Div., 649 P.2d 1283 (granting Commission access to employment records to investigate possible violations of discrimination) and Great Falls Tribune v. Sheriff (1989), 238 Mont. 103, 775 P.2d 1267 (<HOLDING>). In Henning, the defendant was arrested for

A: holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records
B: holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests
C: recognizing the strong privacy interests of the suspects and law enforcement officers identified in the withheld documents
D: holding that the privacy interests of the employee police officers did not exceed the publics right to know
D.