Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

RSS feed

Advisory Opinion 04-036

June 3, 2004; Le Sueur County Sheriff

6/3/2004 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:

On April 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated April 18, 2004, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Le Sueur County Sheriff's Office maintains.

In response to Mr. Quiram's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sheriff David Gliszinski. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Quiram's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office's position. On May 11, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated May 4, 2004, from Carla Mador, the Office's Administrative Assistance and Compliance Official.

A summary of the facts as Mr. Quiram presented them is as follows. In a letter dated February 26, 2004, Mr. Quiram requested viewing of the following items:

1. All data maintained in ICRs, Log entries and Reports generated by Noel Quiram.
2. All data maintained in ICRs, Log entries and Reports generated by Elaine Quiram.
3. Viewing access to correspondence with IAPD [sic], Dept of Admin. who approved your form of 'information access' (non-disclosure) that the above two individuals were solicited by your agency to sign.
4. Origin and source documents that you used to develop the form.
5. Factors/facts of consideration that you use to assign weighted scores
6. Methodology used to validate factors/facts used in scoring, e.g. the subject signer presenting truthful statements.
7. In Aug 2003 I came to your office to make reports of serious violations. Carla took a taped statement, compiled notes and said she we [sic] will get back to you. I called several weeks later to review the progress of the investigation to these matters, several serious gross misdemeanors. I made this request to Carla, I also asked to review (listen), to the taped statement I made over the matter in Sept 2003 and have never heard back from your agency. Please provide me viewing access to the ICR, tape and report documents of these serious offenses.

In his opinion request, Mr. Quiram stated, As of the time of this writing, no answer has been received from this agency to allow me to view and inspect the requested data.

Issue:

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

Has the Le Sueur County Sheriff's Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data?

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government entities must respond to data requests in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2). When the requestor is the data subject, the entity must respond within ten working days (see section 13.04). When the requestor is not the data subject, the entity must respond within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Mador wrote:

...[the February 26, 2004, request was] actually in reference to a letter for requested information that was received in our office on December 22, 2003.

I have enclosed a copy of the information that was sent to [Mr. Quiram] through his attorney...on January 6, 2004. It was sent through [Mr. Quiram's attorney] to be forwarded to Mr. Quiram as we have been instructed several times by Mr. Quiram that we are to have no direct phone or mail contact with him unless it has a Judge's signature. To keep in compliance with his wishes, our responses first go to [Mr. Quiram's attorney].

The Commissioner notes that Ms. Mador did not make any comment as to why the Sheriff's Office did not respond to Mr. Quiram's February 26, 2004, request. The Commissioner also notes that the request the Sheriff's Office received on December 22, 2003, is not the subject of this opinion.

Mr. Quiram made his request on February 26, 2004. As of the date he wrote his opinion request, April 18, 2004, he apparently had not received a response. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, government entities must respond to requests for government data. Therefore, the Sheriff's Office did not comply with Chapter 13 and promptly should provide Mr. Quiram with access to the data or explain upon what statutory basis the data are being denied.

The Commissioner notes that Mr. Quiram requested viewing of the data. While this probably means he wishes to inspect the data, as opposed to receiving copies, it is not clear. The Commissioner recommends that Mr. Quiram clarify this and future requests by indicating whether he wishes to inspect or receive copies of the data. If Mr. Quiram does not do so, the Commissioner recommends that the Sheriff's Office seek clarification from Mr. Quiram.

Further, the Commissioner does not have enough information to comment on Ms. Mador's assertion that Mr. Quiram has requested that all responses go to his attorney. Ms. Mador made her statement in relation to a request the Sheriff's Office received on December 22, 2003, which is not the subject of this opinion.

A final note is in order. The Commissioner questions whether numbers 4, 5, and 6 of Mr. Quiram's February 26, 2004, letter are data requests covered by Chapter 13. If they are not, the Sheriff's Office is not required to respond. Mr. Quiram is welcome to seek assistance from IPAD if he has any questions relating to framing data practices requests.

Opinion:

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

The Le Sueur County Sheriff's Office has not complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data.

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: June 3, 2004

Requests for data

Clarification of request

Data request vs. question/inquiry