Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.

Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to 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. Of relevance to this opinion are the types of data listed in subdivision 2, arrest data, and subdivision 6, response or incident data. These data, as they are created and maintained by a law enforcement agency, are always public, regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation relating to the incident(s).

In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:

...I forwarded [Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen's February 3, 2004, letter] to Mr. Marzitelli. Mr. Marzitelli was able to determine that officers of the Minneapolis Police Department had been involved in a vehicle chase that day and that the individual who was apprehended after the chase collapsed and was taken to the hospital where he later died. Because the individual was in the custody of Minneapolis police when he collapsed, then-Police Chief Robert Olson asked the Hennepin County Sheriff's office to investigate the incident.

Mr. Marzitelli called the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office to determine if they had the data sought by Mr. Coen. Mr. Marzitelli was told that the County would need the name and date of birth of the individual to ascertain whether they had responsive records. Mr. Marzitelli advised me of this conversation and I called Mr. Coen to explain the situation.

Thereafter, Mr. Marzitelli learned that three Minneapolis Police Officers wrote short statements in the Minneapolis Police Department's computer system about their involvement at the scene of the incident that was under investigation by the County. These statements were made at a time when Mr. Williams' identity was not known and his name is not contained in the reports. Consequently, the earlier name search of the computer did not reveal the existence of the statements.

Other than the three initial statements described above, the City of Minneapolis did not create any additional police reports on the August 28, 2003 incident. The investigation and the documentation thereof were controlled by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department....

Mr. Coen has noted that the Star Tribune was apparently able to obtain access to public data about the Williams case. Mr. Coen claims that the reporter obtained data about the incident from the City. A review of the Star Tribune articles discloses the fact that the investigation was being conducted by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and that the Office was the source of the public data about the case....

Mr. Steiner added, I am enclosing [the] brief one-page summary [of the short statements that the three Minneapolis Police Officers wrote about their involvement at the scene of the incident] and, by copy of this letter, I am sending the document to Mr. Coen.

The Commissioner has the following comments. Although Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen made their first data request on January 20, 2004, the City required clarification, which they provided on February 3, 2004. At the time the City received the revised request, the City was obligated to respond, within a reasonable time, to the request for any arrest or response/incident data in the police report from August 28, 2003, detailing the pursuit of, apprehension of, and death of Anthony M. Williams. The City was obligated to respond even though Mr. Williams' name does not appear in the arrest and response/incident data generated by the responding Minneapolis police officers. The point here is that Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen's data request appears to have been a request for data relating to the incident on August 28, 2003, where officers were involved in responding to a call, following which an individual died. The fact that the individual is Anthony M. Williams appears to be incidental to their request.

Regardless of the fact that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office is conducting an investigation, any of the data types described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2 and 6, that the three Minneapolis police officers created and/or collected relating to the incident are public. It took the City at least eight weeks (from on or about February 4, 2004, to on or about April 9, 2004) to provide Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen with public data. This is not timely. Furthermore, if the responding officers created and/or collected any additional data classified as public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 2 and 6, the City promptly should provide those data.

The Commissioner adds he had difficulty understanding the meaning of certain data elements in the document Mr. Steiner provided. If Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen have the same difficulty, they may ask the City to provide them with an explanation of the meaning of the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3.)

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen raised is as follows:

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: May 5, 2004