July 12, 2000; City of Rochester
7/12/2000 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 May 24, 2000, IPA received a letter from Josh Freed and Jay Furst, of the Rochester Post-Bulletin. In this letter, they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Rochester. In response to Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stevan Kvenvold, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated June 2, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On June 7, 2000, IPA received a response from David M. Goslee, Deputy City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. Mr. Freed requested access to City data on paid and unpaid parking tickets. In a letter dated March 7, 2000, Mr. Goslee told Mr. Freed that the City would provide access to all data on paid or resolved parking tickets, and to some of the data on unpaid parking tickets. Mr. Goslee stated that the data on unpaid parking tickets contain a mixture of public and not public data. In his opinion request, Mr. Freed wrote: [a]s I understand it, information related to unpaid parking tickets would fall into two categories: 1) Tickets issued recently enough that their fines aren't due yet, and 2) Overdue tickets, for which arrest warrants are eventually issued. Mr. Goslee stated that a Rochester parking ticket is a notice in a form similar to a cash register receipt that does not identify a person. He described some of the relevant data as containing a description of the time and place a ticket was issued, including the license number, year, make and model of the automobile. In his comments to Mr. Freed and the Commissioner, Mr. Goslee stated that the data in question are law enforcement data and are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. He wrote: [t]he type and extent of information available depends upon the status of the particular ticket/complaint. Different levels of information are available depending on whether the law enforcement data is arrest data, request for service data, or response or incident data. The distribution of the data also depends on whether the investigation is active or inactive. Mr. Goslee discussed the applicability, or lack of same, of subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 of section 13.82. Issue:In their request for an opinion, Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst 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 4 (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. Subdivision 5 classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active. When the investigation is no longer active, within the meaning of subdivision 5, then criminal investigative data are classified as public, with certain exceptions as provided in subdivisions 5 and 10. The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data were specified in order to ensure that they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 5. 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.) Mr. Goslee noted that pursuant to subdivision 12, data contained in the arrest warrant indices are confidential until the defendant has been taken into custody, served with a warrant, or appears before the court. However, parking tickets themselves are not an arrest warrant index, and that subdivision cannot be relied upon to deny access to the unpaid parking ticket data. Mr. Goslee also stated that he does not believe subdivision 2 of section 13.82 applies to parking ticket data. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. According to section 13.82, subdivision 2, arrest data, which are public at all times, include data that document any actions taken . . . to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty . . . . In the case of parking tickets, the law enforcement agency issues a citation, i.e., the ticket, rather than making an arrest. Parking ticket data that fit the descriptions provided in subdivision 2 are therefore always public. In summary, data on unpaid parking tickets are public unless they are classified as not public under section 13.82, subdivision 5, or another provision of section 13.82 or other statutes regulating law enforcement data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: July 12, 2000 |
Law enforcement data
Legislative authority and intent
Legislative authority and intent
Arrest data
Arrest warrant indices
Parking citation/ticket
Law enforcement data
Presumption of openness
Law enforcement data
