November 16, 2001; City of Watertown
11/16/2001 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 government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access. On October 5, 2001, the Commissioner received a letter dated October 3, 2001, from Kelly Dohm, an attorney representing the City of Watertown. In her letter, Ms. Dohm asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains. At IPA's request, Ms. Dohm submitted a clarifying letter dated October 9, 2001, that IPA received on October 16, 2001. A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Dohm wrote that the City owns a municipal liquor store and that the store uses videotapes for surveillance. She stated, [t]here is an organization that provides security services to the City in setting up the cameras in the liquor store which takes the videotapes. She further wrote: As I understand the security services role, the security service maintains the videotape equipment, but does not possess or hold the videotapes themselves. The videotapes are stored at the liquor store for a period of approximately 30 days after which time they are taped over. Although the security service maintains the videotape equipment in that it repairs the equipment when necessary in order for the videotapes themselves to record and run, the security service does not house the videotapes or collect them. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Dohm asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. There is no question that the videotapes are government data. They are data that the City of Watertown creates and maintains. In her opinion request, Ms. Dohm questioned whether the videotapes might be classified as not public pursuant to section 13.861, security service data. Section 13.861, subdivision 1(b), defines security service data as all data collected, created, or maintained by a security service for the purpose of providing security services. Here, although the security service maintains and presumably owns the video cameras, it is the City that directs the creation of the data on the tapes and is always in possession of the tapes. For these reasons, it is the Commissioner's opinion that the videotapes are not classified pursuant to section 13.861. The Commissioner notes there are other provisions of Chapter 13, that, depending upon the content or way in which the data on the videotapes are being used, could make portions of the tape(s) not public for specific purposes and for specific periods of time. However, given the facts of this case, none of those provisions apply. Thus, based on the presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, and absent any other relevant information from the City it appears that, in this case, the data on the videotapes are public. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Dohm raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: November 16, 2001 |
Government Data
Regardless of physical form
Security service data (13.861)
Videotapes
