May 22, 2007; City of Thief River Falls
5/22/2007 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:
On March 28, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated same, from David Hill, on behalf of two newspapers, the Thief River Falls Times and Northern Watch. In his letter, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspapers' right to gain access to certain data from the City of Thief River Falls. IPAD requested clarification, which was provided April 12, 2007. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jodie Torkelson, Administrator, in response to Mr. Hill's request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 2007, were to inform her of Mr. Hill's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City's position. On April 23, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated April 19, 2007, from Delray Sparby, Assistant City Attorney. A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Hill is as follows. In a letter dated March 20, 2007, Mr. Sparby wrote to Mr. Hill: This letter is in follow-up to your recent correspondence requesting that law enforcement reports of accidents include the make, year and model of vehicles. Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.82, Subd. 6, addresses response or incident data, which specifically includes data created or collected by law enforcement agencies in response to traffic accidents and classifies certain categories of such data as public government data. The statute does not list the make, year or model of the vehicle as public government data subject to disclosure. . . . In his opinion request, Mr. Hill wrote: Recently, the [City] devised what is described as incident data report worksheets to assist employees of the [City] prepare information for release to news media . . . Shortly after the new incident report documents came into use [the newspapers] . . . expressed our objection to the absence of make, year and model of vehicles involved in accident [sic] from the reports. Up until that point, it had been the regular practice of law enforcement agencies . . . to include such data in incident reports. It is still data that is created and collected by [the City].
Issue:
Based on Mr. Hill's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Some law enforcement data are public, some are private, and some are confidential/protected nonpublic. Minnesota Statutes, section 169.09, relates to traffic accidents. It states that peace officers who investigate certain types of traffic accidents must report specific information to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). (See section 169.09, subdivision 8.) Language in subdivision 13 of section 169.09 discusses that the reports and supplemental information are used primarily for accident analysis purposes. In addition, subdivision 13 of section 169.09 places restrictions on the use of and access to data in accident reports but provides situations in which certain data may be disclosed. Clause (d) of subdivision 13, states, Disclosing any information contained in any accident report, except as provided in this subdivision, section 13.82, subdivision 3 [request for service data] or 6 [response or incident data], or other statutes, is a misdemeanor. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sparby wrote: The question from the [City's] standpoint is the interaction of 169.09 with 13.82, in regard to the disclosure of information and/or data of the same type that is contained in the State Accident Report Forms. . . . The required State accident reports list the make model and year of the vehicles involved and therefore would constitute data contained in an accident report. Neither, Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subd. 3, nor Subd. 6, address or specifically include the make, year or model of the vehicle(s) as public government data always subject to disclosure. The [City] Law Enforcement Officers also put the State accident information data, or portions thereof, into other reports created or collected as part of a response to a traffic accident (ie. incident reports, call for services documentation, police response reports, etc.). The question then becomes whether the statutory confidential designation regarding all reports, supplemental information and data required to be reported under Section 169.09 . . . extends to the same information and/or data when said information or data is contained in other written material or reports (ie. incident reports, call for services, police response reports, etc.). It appears to be an anomaly that data collected in reference to the same incident would be classified as confidential in one form, but would lose its confidential status because it is merely reported in a different written format. . . . The concern from the governmental view is the exposure to liability and the confusing aspect that the provision of same data contained in the required State accident reports, albeit in a different format from the State accident report itself, may be construed as a misdemeanor violation of Section 169.09, Subd. 13 (d). The Commissioner is aware that many agencies have questions about how to classify data relating to traffic accidents. The Commissioner provides her analysis below but believes it would be best for the Legislature to clarify its intent on these matters. Pursuant to the relevant language in section 169.09, subdivision 13(d), law enforcement agencies may not disclose information contained in any accident report, (except for those types of data listed in section 13.82, subdivision 3 [request for service] or 6 [response or incident]). The Commissioner's interpretation is that this clause refers to the data only as they are located in the DPS traffic accident report documents. In other words, although neither the accident report documents nor the data in them can be released (with the exception of any request for service or response or incident data), if law enforcement agencies maintain the same data elsewhere in incident reports, call for service reports, police response reports, etc., the data in those other reports, databases, etc., are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Unless there is an active criminal investigation, most data classified by section 13.82 are public. The opposite conclusion, that data maintained in call or response records that also have been included on the DPS traffic accident report documents are not public, is problematic given the Legislature's clear intent that most data maintained by law enforcement agencies are public. Again, the Commissioner encourages interested parties to solicit legislative clarification. She notes this situation illustrates the difficulties in classifying a document as opposed to classifying the data that exist within a document. Most, if not all, of the provisions in Chapter 13 classify data rather than documents. Mr. Hill's question is whether the make, year, and model of vehicles involved in traffic accidents are public. If the City maintained these data on only the DPS traffic accident report documents, pursuant to section 169.09, subdivision 13(d), the City could release only those types of data listed as request for service or response or incident data in section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6. Vehicle make, year, and model are not listed specifically as request for service, or response or incident data. Therefore, the City would not be required to release the data. However, as Mr. Sparby wrote, the City maintains the vehicle data in forms, reports, etc., other than the DPS traffic accident report documents. Thus, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.82, rather than section 169.09. If there is an active criminal investigation involving the vehicle data, the City can protect the data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7. If there is not an active criminal investigation involving the vehicle data, it appears the City must release the data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Hill raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: May 22, 2007 |
Law enforcement data
Traffic accidents (169.09)
