Issue:

What is the classification of certain data (see numbers 1 through 7 of Rose Farley's April 10, 1996, letter) collected, created, received, or maintained by the Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility (Hennepin County Workhouse)?

---

Discussion:

To address the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson, it is necessary to review Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, which provides for the treatment/classification of data on an individual created, collected, used and/or maintained because of that individual's lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms, and/or all other correctional and detention facilities.

Of relevance to this advisory opinion, Section 13.85, subdivision 2, states:

Unless the data are summary data or arrest data, or a statute specifically provides a different classification, corrections and detention data on individuals are classified as private pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, to the extent that the release of the data would either (a) disclose personal, medical, psychological, or financial information or (b) endanger an individual's life.

In essence, Mr. Hough, on behalf of Hennepin County, argued that release of the data requested by Ms. Farley in numbers one through seven would disclose personal information relating to specific inmates. In addition, Mr. Hough asserted that release of the inmates' hourly wages would also disclose financial information relating to specific inmates. In Ms. Madison's May 1, 1996, letter she stated, Hennepin County in this situation must give deference to an individual's privacy rights and believes that this information is protected by the Act. While she acknowledged that Chapter 13 does not specifically define personal, she cited Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary which defines personal as ' [o]f or relating to a particular person.'

In presenting a different perspective, Mr. Anfinson argued that the definition embraced by Hennepin County is much too broad. He wrote, If accepted, it would block access to a wide range of data under section13.85, a result that would seem inconsistent with the Legislature's intentions.

Mr. Anfinson also wrote:

...Section 13.43 [personnel data] limits access to various personal data about government employees, but a considerable range of such data of and relating to those employees is nonetheless public. If the inmates in the work release program being examined by Ms. Farley were government employees, for example, most of the information sought in her categories one through seven would be public under section13.43, subd. 2. It seems unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to extend greater personal privacy rights to criminals than to even the lowest-ranking public employee.

Mr. Anfinson also asserted:

We would also argue that in the absence of a specific definition of personal data in section13.85, any interpretation adopted should reflect the presumption on which the Data Practices Act rests, namely, that all data are presumed public unless expressly classified otherwise. Under this approach, a relatively narrow definition of personal data would seem appropriate.

Two previous Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinions offer assistance in the interpretation of Section 13.85. One, 95-004, discussed the term personal in reference to whether mug shots are public data. In that opinion, the Commissioner wrote:

...the legislature has not provided a specific definition of personal, and therefore the dictionary offers guidance. [The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985] defines personal inter alia, as of or pertaining to a particular person; private; one's own. A definition this broad must be narrowed in order to be meaningful in this context. Clearly the legislature did not intend for any or all data pertaining to detained individuals to be classified as private, or it would not have included the conditions specified in Section 13.85 (2)(a) and (b). Therefore, in order for the County to make a reasonable argument that mug shots may be classified under this Section, it must be determined that a mug shot falls within a reasonably narrow definition of personal information.

In the other Advisory Opinion, 94-031, the Commissioner opined, As to the proper classification of birth date data held by Corrections, the classification of birth date data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85 if [sic] private and therefore birth date data cannot be made available to the public by Corrections.

To properly determine the classification of corrections and detention data, it is critical to understand the use of the term personal. However, the Legislature did not explicitly define personal. Therefore, it is appropriate to seek guidance from Minnesota Statutes Chapter 645, which was enacted by the Legislature to help others understand legislative intent.

Section 645.16 lists various factors to consider in determining legislative intent when the words of a law are not explicit. One matter to be considered is the occasion and necessity for the law. In the situation-at-hand, Chapter 13 seeks to create a balance between the need for openness of government and the need for privacy rights of citizens. In striking this balance, the Legislature has stated a strong presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Therefore, in searching for legislative intent to interpret the term personal, and how it relates to the classification of corrections and detentions data, the presumption of public access makes it appropriate to construe the term as narrowly as possible.

Another matter to be considered in determining legislative intent is the object to be attained. It certainly appears that the Legislature sought to protect some corrections and detention data from being disclosed. However, given that the language specifically prohibits disclosure of medical, psychological, or financial information in addition to personal information, it seems unlikely that the term personal was meant to include all data pertaining to detained individuals. Therefore, as discussed in Advisory Opinion 95-004, data should be protected under Subdivision 2 only if those data fall within a reasonably narrow definition of personal information.

Another matter to be considered in determining legislative intent is the consequences of a particular interpretation. In the case-at-hand, if Hennepin County's interpretation, i.e., data is personal if it relates to a particular person, is carried to its logical end, all data about inmates are personal and, therefore, no data about a particular inmate could ever be disseminated to the public. How, then, for example, would a corrections facility be able to notify the public that an inmate had escaped? Such a consequence seems unintended by the Legislature. Furthermore, if the Legislature had intended for all data about inmates to be private, it would have so stated.

A final consequence of accepting Hennepin County's broad definition of personal is discussed by Mr. Anfinson in his opinion request. He noted that, when compared to the treatment of public employees, Hennepin County's interpretation of Section 13.85 would lead to an inmate having greater privacy rights than a public employee. Mr. Anfinson concluded that such a result seemed unreasonable and the Commissioner agrees.

Therefore, based on the aforementioned discussion, it is the Commissioner's opinion that the following data requested by Ms. Farley are not personal data about inmates and, therefore, are public:

A list of each inmate at the Hennepin County Workhouse who has been granted work release to Scoville Press, in Plymouth, as part of the Private Sector Work Program since December of 1994; The date that each inmate participated in the release; The number of hours each inmate worked under the program; and The inmates' job descriptions.

In regard to Ms. Farley's request to Hennepin County for the hourly wages of each inmate who is participating in the Private Sector Work Program at Scoville Press, it is the Commissioner's determination that such data may be appropriately classified as private data pursuant to Section 13.85, subdivision 2. Subdivision 2, in relevant part, states that corrections and detentions data on individuals are private to the extent that a release of those data would disclose financial information about those individuals. Because an explanation of the hourly wages paid to an inmate seems to fall well within the definition of financial information about that particular inmate, it is appropriate that Hennepin County not release those data to Ms. Farley.

As to the classification of birth date data, the Commissioner addressed this issue in Advisory Opinion 94-031 and determined that such data are private. [See note at top of opinion.]

In regard to the conviction data requested by Ms. Farley, because such data are clearly public in court records (see Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch, Rule 4), it is difficult to conclude those data, at Hennepin County, are personal, and, therefore, private. Thus, the data are public and accessible to Ms. Farley.

---

Opinion:

Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Based on a narrow reading of the term personal in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, subdivision 2, the following data are public and accessible to Ms. Farley:

A list of each inmate at the Hennepin County Workhouse who has been granted work release to Scoville Press, in Plymouth, as part of the Private Sector Work Program since December of 1994; The date that each inmate participated in the release; The number of hours each inmate worked under the program; The inmates' job descriptions; and What the inmates were convicted of that led to their confinement at the Workhouse.

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: July 12, 1996

---