Issues:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time.

When an individual makes a request for data of which s/he is the subject, pursuant to section 13.04, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days.

Issue 1

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request in December 1999 for ICR information of who and what caused [the Sheriff's Office] to respond to my private property ?

In his comments, Sheriff Gliszinski wrote:

Deputy David Struckman, as he was initiating the investigation, advised Quiram that this was a criminal investigation and he could not release requested information at that time. Quiram was later informed of the name of the complainant, at the conclusion of the investigation, when Quiram received the criminal complaint indicating the violation of Mn. State Statute regarding this matter.

Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified at section 13.82. Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of section 13.82 contain descriptions of types of data and associated data elements that are always public. However, the data described in those subdivisions are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data elements were specified to ensure that a law enforcement agency could not protect them as active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7. 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. (See also Advisory Opinions 97-023 and 97-024.)

In addition, certain law enforcement data are never public. For example, under section 13.82, subdivision 17, the identities of undercover agents, informants, certain witnesses and victims (under certain conditions), and victims of criminal sexual conduct, among others, are never public. Further, some law enforcement data, i.e., active criminal investigative data, are not public while an investigation is active. See section 13.82, subdivision 7. When the investigation no longer is active, criminal investigative data, with certain exceptions, are classified as public.

In this case, it appears that when Mr. Quiram made his initial request for data, the Sheriff's Office was conducting a criminal investigation. Therefore, some data about the investigation were not available to Mr. Quiram. However, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, the Sheriff's Office was required to release certain data about the incident. Based on the Sheriff's comments, it appears that the investigation is now over. Thus, Mr. Quiram should be provided with all public data about the incident. If the Sheriff's Office has not yet provided Mr. Quiram with the public data, it should do so promptly.

Issue 2

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a winter 2000 request for investigation work product regarding an incident that occurred in December 1999? (This request was made again on January 10, 2001, for the ICR, report, statements and all other supporting data of the investigation outlined in the request given you in May 2000. )

In his comments to the Commissioner, Sheriff Gliszinski did not address the issue of Mr. Quiram's request for data relating to his (Mr. Quiram's) complaint against members of the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff wrote only that he met with and corresponded with Mr. Quiram regarding the allegations of misconduct. The Commissioner cannot determine, therefore, whether the Sheriff responded in any respect to Mr. Quiram's request. If the Sheriff does not understand Mr. Quiram's request, he should ask Mr. Quiram for clarification. If the request is clear, the Sheriff is required by sections 13.03 and 13.04 to respond to the request.

Further, the Commissioner notes that data about employees are classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the various types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. When a complaint has been made about an employee, certain data are public: the name, the fact that a complaint was made, and the status of the complaint. See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). If the entity takes disciplinary action and a final disposition occurs, more data become public. See section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a)(5) and 2(b).

Issue 3

In May 2000, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff violate X's rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by requiring X to fill out a Document/Service Request form because the form requires payment before service complete or documents released ? X wanted to inspect data.

Mr. Quiram provided to the Commissioner a copy of the Document/Service Request form.

In his comments to the Commissioner Sheriff Glizsinski wrote:

This documentation is requested to assist LeSueur County employee's [sic] gather requested material completely and in a timely manner. Because the LeSueur County employee's [sic] workload is substantial, it may not [sic] possible to retrieve requested documents at that given time, however, when requested through the form process the documents can be retrieved during a reasonable time period. These forms are not required to be completed by the requester, however, staff will fill them out and maintain them to ensure all requested information is retrieved.

The Commissioner has the following comments regarding the form. One, there is no provision in Chapter 13 prohibiting government entities from requiring that requests be made in writing. An issue could arise, however, if an individual wishes to make an anonymous request, as provided for in section 13.05, subdivision 12. The government entity would have to determine how to accommodate such a request. Two, the Commissioner finds the following statement confusing: Payment is required before service complete or documents released. If this form were presented to an individual who was not aware of his/her rights under Chapter 13, it would be reasonable for this person to conclude that a fee is required to access data. This is incorrect because inspection is free of charge. Therefore, the Commissioner urges the Sheriff's Office to revise its data request form so that it accurately reflects the provisions of Chapter 13.

Also, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), a government entity is required to prepare and make available that entity's procedures for accessing government data. The 2000 Legislature enacted this provision, which went into effect on January 1, 2001. Presumably, a document such as the Document/Service Request form would be a part of the Sheriff's Office's procedures.

Finally, Mr. Quiram asserted that in at least one instance he filled out the form indicating he wished to inspect data and was never provided any response. Under Chapter 13, the Sheriff's Office would be denying Mr. Quiram's rights if it denied him the opportunity to inspect data free of charge.

Issue 4

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request to inspect the Sheriff's data practices policy ?

The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted the language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:

The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.

In his comments, the Sheriff wrote, This request appears to be made by e-mail. I do not respond to requests for documents by e-mail and have advised Quiram that e-mail requests will not be accepted by me.

Chapter 13 does not address the issue of how an individual is to make requests for data. The statute does not require that an individual request data in writing nor does it state that an individual cannot request data in writing. Further, Chapter 13 does not provide any guidance on whether or not an entity must accept data requests via e-mail. Sheriff Gliszinski stated that the Office's policy is not to accept data requests via e-mail. Assuming this is the case, the Office is required, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to include such information in its data access procedures. Sheriff Gliszinski did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the Office's procedures.

Sheriff Gliszinski also asserted that he has informed Mr. Quiram of the policy. The Commissioner has no way of knowing whether this is the case. The appropriate time to inform Mr. Quiram of the policy would have been shortly after Mr. Quiram made his request. If Mr. Quiram was aware of the policy regarding e-mail requests, he should be submitting his requests to the Sheriff's Office in person or via U.S. mail. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Sheriff's Office is required to provide a copy of the data access policy/procedures within a reasonable time.

Issue 5

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request for the ICRs, report, statements and other supporting data of reports made by [Y], of which I or any of my family are the subject of [Y's] reports ?

In his comments, Sheriff Gliszinski again wrote, This request appears to be made by e-mail. I do not respond to requests for documents by e-mail and have advised Quiram that e-mail requests will not be accepted by me.

Please see Issue 4 for the Commissioner's discussion regarding data requests via e-mail.

The Commissioner has the following comments regarding the content of Mr. Quiram's request. The Sheriff is required, in a prompt or appropriate manner, or within a reasonable time, to provide Mr. Quiram with any public data of which Mr. Quiram is not the subject. See section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300. Also, the Sheriff is required, within ten working days, to provide Mr. Quiram with any data of which he is the subject. See section 13.04. As stated above, if the Sheriff's standard procedure is that data requests will not be accepted via e-mail, Mr. Quiram should submit his requests in person or by U.S. mail. The Sheriff's Office must then respond to Mr. Quiram's request as required by sections 13.03 and 13.04.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Quiram raised is as follows:

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: April 3, 2001