Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation

Facts and Procedural History:

On September 22, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X dated September 3, 1994, in which he expressed concern that several violations of Chapter 13 had occurred regarding his dealings with the Corrections Division of Anoka County. Attached to this letter was a copy of a CHRONO (Refers to a type of document apparently used by Anoka County Probation for work on individual probation/parole cases. Information appears to be listed in the chronological order in which it was obtained and includes data from telephone conversations, office visits, etc.) X received from his probation officer, Mr. Tom Foster. Because PIPA was unable to determine the specific issues about which X was seeking assistance, a request for clarification, dated October 5, 1994, was mailed to him.

On November 3, 1994, PIPA received a second letter from X, dated October 23, 1994, in which he specifically requested an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.

A summary of the detailed information provided by X is as follows. X made a data request to his probation officer for various kinds of data, including ...documents on all correspondence regarding conversations he [probation officer] has had which have not been solicited regarding myself which included all the Crono's [sic] he [probation officer] has logged in the logs, as well as any handwritten or miscellaneous materials regarding third-party conversations.

X received, from Mr. Foster, a copy of these documents with various data blacked out or redacted. Most of the notations regarding the redacted sections were labeled as having come from confidential callers. According to X, Mr. Foster, in redacting the data, cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.24, subdivisions 3 and 5, (the reference to section 13.24 appears to be a typographical error and probably should read Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84) and stated that the information is protected because the sources so requested.

In response to X's request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Tim Yantos, the Deputy County Administrator of Anoka County. The purposes of this letter, dated November 4, 1994, were to inform Mr. Yantos of X's request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask Mr. Yantos or the County's attorney to provide information or support for the County's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.

On November 21, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Yantos, in which he stated Anoka County's position to be the following: the chronological entries into the probation file maintained by Anoka County Corrections Department on X are classified as confidential data on individuals pursuant to Minn. Stat. [section] 13.84, subd. 4. He further stated in his letter that the chronological entries are, information which is gathered by the Anoka County Corrections Department to help determine whether he [X] has remained law abiding or on good behavior or whether he has followed the reasonable recommendations of the Anoka County Corrections Department. This information also determines whether there is to be any legal action or disposition of X while he remains on probation.

Issue:

Discussion:

Anoka County makes its determination that the data sought by X are confidential based on Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84, Subdivision 4. Subdivision 4 states that progress and other reports and recommendations provided at the request of the court by parole or probation officers for the purpose of determining the appropriate legal action or disposition regarding an individual on probation are confidential data on individuals. According to Mr. Yantos, Anoka County is collecting the data about X, maintained in the chronological entries, because the court has requested this information to help determine whether X has complied with the rules of his probation and whether there is to be any legal action or disposition while he remains on probation. Therefore, Mr. Yantos believes the data sought by X are properly classified as confidential.

X, however, believes the data in question to be private. In support of that position, he relies on language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84, Subdivision 2 and Subdivision 3. Subdivision 2 states that unless the data are summary data or a statute specifically provides a different classification, certain court services data are private. The statute then lists the following types of data which are private: (a) data gathered at the request of a municipal, district, or county court to determine the need for any treatment, rehabilitation, counseling, or any other need of a defendant, parolee, probationer, or participant in a diversion program, and used by the court to assist in assigning an appropriate sentence or other disposition in a case; (b) data on petitioners or respondents to a family court gathered at the request of a court for purposes of, but not limited to, individual, family, marriage, chemical dependency and marriage dissolution adjustment counseling, including recommendations to the court as to the custody of minor children in marriage dissolution cases; (c) data on individuals gathered by psychologists in the course of providing the court or its staff with psychological evaluations or in the course of counseling individual clients referred by; the court for the purpose of assisting them with personal conflicts or difficulties.

The language in Subdivision 3 of Section 13.84 relates to the data collected in Subdivision 2. Subdivision 3 states that when, in the course of gathering the private data described in Subdivision 2, a psychologist, probation officer or other agent of the court is directed by the court to obtain data on individual defendants, parolees, probationers, or petitioners or respondents in a family court, and the source of that data provides the data only upon the condition of its being held confidential, that data and the identity of the source shall be confidential data on individuals.

X relies on the following interpretation of Subdivision 3 to state his position. He suggests that data gathered for the purposes stated in Subdivision 2 can become confidential only by order or direction of the court. He argues that, because there has been no such order or direction in his case, the data in question are private.

However, on this point, the statute is quite clear. Subdivision 3 states that data gathered under Subdivision 2 can be converted to a confidential classification if the source of the data so requests. Direction from a court is not required.

The basis for Anoka County's position that the data are confidential is clear. The authority for this position is Subdivision 4 of Section 13.84, not Subdivision 3. Subdivision 4 classifies data which are collected for the purpose of determining the appropriate legal action or disposition regarding someone on probation. In his letter, Mr. Yantos states that Anoka County has gathered some of the data in the chronologies on X to determine his compliance with the rules of probation as ordered by the sentencing court and also to determine whether there is to be any legal action or disposition while he is on probation. Anoka County appears to be collecting this data for the reasons described in Subdivision 4. Therefore, because the data classified in Subdivision 4 are confidential, it would appear that the blacked out, or redacted data about X are confidential.

Opinion: