Issues:

Discussion:

In summary, these provisions require government entities to respond to requests for access to government data appropriately and promptly. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity is required to so notify the requester.

Some of the data sought by the Quirams are collected by the LeSueur County Sheriff and recorded on ICRs and dispatch logs. Specifically, the Quirams have requested access to the public data on ICRs and dispatch logs dating back to 1991. Pursuant to Chapter 13, certain types of data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data, regardless of the form or document on which they are maintained. Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, state specifically which arrest data, request for service data, and response for service data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data. It is highly likely that both the ICRs and dispatch logs maintained by the Sheriff contain arrest data, request for service data, and/or response for service data. Generally speaking, if the Sheriff maintains any of these types of data, the Quirams, as members of the public, should have access to those data.

In the Sheriff's March 21, 1995, response to the Quirams' request, he suggested Mr. Quiram contact the Waterville Police Department dispatcher to review their logs as [Waterville's] file would not be as large as the Sheriff Department file. He also stated he had previously answered such a request some time ago. (This response referred to by the Sheriff was sent to PIPA by Mr. Quiram. It is dated June 16, 1994, and is addressed to Mr. Quiram's attorney.)

In the Sheriff's June 16, 1994, response, he referred to Section 13.82, subdivision 9, but cited only a portion, When data is classified as public under this section, a law enforcement agency shall not be required to make the actual physical data available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential. He then stated that separating the confidential data on the ICRS from the public data on the ICRS would require hundreds of hours and therefore, the task was not administratively feasible.

He also stated, Even if the task were feasible the Sheriff department is allowed to collect reasonable costs for the production of the requested documents. Since in this instance it would be necessary to expend hundreds of hours to review almost five years of records, it would not be unreasonable to believe those costs would run into the thousands of dollars. If [Mr. Quiram's co-requester] is willing to pay these monies up front I would be more than happy to reconsider my position.

The Sheriff's response is problematic for two reasons. In his June 16, 1994, letter, he omitted the following two sentences of Section 13.82, subdivision 9: However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner. When investigative data becomes inactive, as described in subdivision 5, the actual physical data associated with that investigation, including the public data, shall be available for public access.

Read in its entirety, Section 13.82, subdivision 9, provides that unless the data are inactive investigative data, a law enforcement agency is not required to make the actual physical data available to the public, if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential data. However, as is clearly stated, this provision does not relieve the agency of its responsibility to make the information described as public data available to the public. If the Quirams cannot view the actual physical data on the ICRs and dispatch logs because the Sheriff determines that separating the public from the private data is not administratively feasible, one way for the Sheriff to fulfill his obligation under Chapter 13 would be for the Sheriff's staff to verbally communicate to the Quirams the content of the public data. Again, the Sheriff cannot rely upon Section 13.82, subdivision 9, to prevent the Quirams from gaining access to the ICR and dispatch data described as public.

The other problem with the Sheriff's response is that pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, a government entity may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, does provide that a government entity may require a requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. Regarding the present situation, the Quirams wish only to view the data. Therefore, the Sheriff cannot charge them a fee.

The June 30, 1994, response from Assistant LeSueur County Attorney Keogh, forwarded to PIPA from the Sheriff, offers a slightly different twist on the aforementioned Sheriff's argument. Mr. Keogh first states, Please be advised initially that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, the County acknowledges that the requesting parties are entitled to the public portion of the information sought. However, he then cites Section 13.82, subdivision 9, and appears to assert that the Quirams are precluded from viewing the actual data because it is not administratively feasible to separate the public data from the private data. Next, he seems to suggest the only way for the Quirams to gain access to the data described as public is for the Sheriff's staff to engage in an elaborate photocopying exercise, to dictate for transcription, or to hand-copy portions of the data. Mr. Keogh then appears to assert that any of the aforementioned processes will require searching for and retrieving government data, and that therefore, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Quirams' request will be quite costly.

While it may be true that separating the public and private data is not administratively feasible, the Sheriff is still under an obligation to provide, free of charge, the data described as public for inspection by the Quirams. Only if the Quirams request copies of the data, does the Sheriff have authority, under Chapter 13, to charge them for the copies.

The Quirams have also requested access to specific ICRs which they believe are maintained by the Sheriff. In their March 6, 1995, request to the Sheriff for data, the Quirams asked to view specific ICRs and provided general details describing those particular ICRs. The details provided to the Sheriff included statements such as the following:

In his March 21, 1995, letter, the Sheriff's comments relating to the Quirams' request for access to specific ICRs are not consistent with requirements set forth in Chapter 13. For example, while he appears to acknowledge that, in most cases, reports were made and investigations were conducted, the Sheriff did not address the statutory bases for denying the Quirams' requests to gain access to the data. In addition, he suggested that some of the requested data had already been explained to the Quirams, or that data relating to a particular complaint resided with the complainant.

Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Quirams have the right to gain access to any public data maintained by the Sheriff. If the Quirams wish to have access to the public data collected and recorded on a specific ICR that were created in a particular month or year, or that relate to a particular individual or location, the Sheriff must provide the Quirams with access to those data. In addition, if the Quirams are seeking inactive investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5, the Sheriff must provide them with access to those public data, as well.

The Quirams have also requested access to the 1992, 1993, and 1994 mutual aid/joint powers agreements for the LeSueur County Drug Task Force. While there appears to be no dispute that the mutual aid/joint powers agreements are public data, the Sheriff, in his March 21,1995, letter responded to the Quirams' request in a vague fashion, The Joint Powers agreement you have for 1995 is identical to the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 agreement. If you still want copies of this it would simply be a duplication. Since it appears the agreements are public data, the Quirams have the right to have access to those agreements, regardless of whether they are, in the Sheriff's opinion, duplicates of data already obtained by the Quirams.

The Quirams have also requested access to certain personnel data about specific sheriff's deputies. The data being requested by the Quirams are the educational and training backgrounds and previous work experiences of those deputies. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, particular data about public employees are public data, including a public employee's educational and training background and previous work experience.

In his March 21, 1995, response to the Quiram's request, the Sheriff states the data are private and kept in the officers' personnel files, I would suggest you contact each individual Officer and they can give you this information if they choose to do so. Further, in his July 24, 1995, response, the Sheriff states, Each and every one of these officers [certain LeSueur County Deputies] have received the minimum officer training enabling them to obtain a Minnesota Police Officer's license. In addition, each of these officers have requested that no further information regarding their educational background [sic] be released to Mr. Quiram. The Sheriff is simply incorrect in his understanding of how these particular personnel data elements are classified. According to Chapter 13, the data are clearly public and therefore, should be accessible, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to the Quirams.

Opinion:

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: July 31, 1995