June 6, 2001; City of St. Paul
6/6/2001 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On April 2, 2001, IPA received a letter dated March 30, 2001, from Gary Hill of KSTP-TV News. In his letter, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding KSTP's access to certain data that the City of St. Paul Police Department maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Finney, Chief of the City's Police Department, in response to Mr. Hill's request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 4, 2001, were to inform Chief Finney of Mr. Hill's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On April 16, 2001, IPA received a response, dated April 13, 2001, from Reyne Rofuth, Assistant St. Paul City Attorney. A summary of the facts as Mr. Hill presented them is as follows. On March 22, 2001, a KSTP staff person requested data from the Police Department about a particular occurrence, including request for service data (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 3), a transcript of a 911 call (section 13.82, subdivision 4), and response or incident data (section 13.82, subdivision 6). Mr. Hill wrote that on March 23, 2001, the Department provided the response or incident data but redacted the identity of the complainant and denied the request for the 911 transcript citing section 13.82, subdivision 7. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. The Legislature specified those data as public so they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7. (Subdivision 7 classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active.) The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. Accordingly, the only data that are classified as not public under section 13.82 are the specific data described in the various subdivisions of section 13.82 or in other statutes regulating law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions 97-023 and 97-024, 00-024, and 00-025.) In the case of this opinion, an individual made a 911 call to the St. Paul Police Department. The purpose of that call was to request service. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rofuth stated that shortly after officers responded to the individual's call, the individual became a possible perpetrator of a crime. Ms. Rofuth wrote: [By the time KSTP-TV made a data request] the incident had already evolved from a case where a complainant/victim, A, had used the 911 system to called [sic] in a situation which consisted of elements of the serious crime of felony assault to that of an investigation where it appeared the same complainant/victim was potentially a suspect by falsely reporting a crime to the police. The data of that active investigation continued to be active until [a Department Investigator] turned the case over to the City Attorney's Office and the prosecutor then declined prosecution...on March 29, 2001. The case's status is now, once again, that of an active investigation due to the fact that the prosecution is reconsidering th [sic] facts for charging. Ms. Rofuth asserted that A's status changed quickly from a complainant/victim to a potential suspect. She wrote, Therefore, A held the status of a suspect in an active investigation...A, however, was notcited, arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty at the time of [KSTP-TV's] request. Ms. Rofuth added, A's entire 911 telephone conversation, in and of itself, is the potential crime....The 911 call is part of the ongoing investigation from the street officer to [the Inspector] to the prosecutor for consideration and now reconsideration of charging. The Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 3, clause (b), the name and address of an individual who makes a request for service are public unless the identity of that individual qualifies for protection under subdivision 17. In this case, the caller made a request for service. Therefore, the only situation in which his/her identity can be protected is if s/he qualifies for protection under subdivision 17; either clause (d) or clause (f) could apply. Clause (d) states that an agency shall withhold the identity of a victim or witness to a crime if that individual specifically requests not to be identified publicly, unless the agency reasonably determines that revealing the individual's identity would not threaten the personal safety or property of the individual. Clause (f), in relevant part, states that an agency shall withhold the identity of a person who placed a call to a 911 system when the agency determines that revealing the identity may threaten the personal safety or property of any person. Subdivision 17 also provides that law enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to acquire the data and make decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in clauses (d) and (f). Regarding subdivision 17, Ms. Rofuth wrote, A's 911 telephone call indicated A wanted to remain anonymous. She also stated, [While]...the Department could argue that A's identification qualified for protection under subdivision 17 (f), the Department asserts the determinative position is that [the data are criminal investigative data]. Thus, although Ms. Rofuth raised the issue of subdivision 17, she did not elaborate about the caller's request to remain anonymous (clause (d)) or how release of the caller's identity would threaten his/her personal safety or property (clause (f)). Therefore, it does not appear to the Commissioner that the Department can rely on subdivision 17 to deny access to the caller's identity. Ms. Rofuth also argued that the caller's identity and the 911 transcript are not public because they are criminal investigative data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, arrest, request for service, and response or incident data, including the name and address of the individual making the request, are always public. Subdivision 7 provides: [e]xcept for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data . . . is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Accordingly, the identity of an individual making a request for service is public under subdivision 6. A law enforcement agency is not obligated to disclose to the public that the individual is also a suspect. See also Advisory Opinion 00-078 in which the Commissioner addressed a similar issue. Regarding the 911 transcript, section 13.82, subdivision 4, states the following: The audio recording of a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting services from a law enforcement...agency is private data on individuals with respect to the individual making the call, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17. As discussed above, Ms. Rofuth did not demonstrate that, in this case, the caller's identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 17. Therefore, the transcript is public data. It is the Commissioner's opinion that the transcript cannot be protected under subdivision 7 as criminal investigative data because it is not data that the Department collected or prepared in order to prepare a case against the caller. Rather, a call of this nature to a 911 center is a type of request for service data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hill raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: June 6, 2001 |
Law enforcement data
Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)
Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)
