Discussion:

Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, the data comprising the audiotape of a 911 telephone call placed by N to St. Paul are private. Private data are accessible to the subject(s) of those data. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Therefore, the data comprising the 911 telephone call placed by N are accessible to N. Further, because Chapter 13 confers upon data subjects the right to inspect data without being charged (see Section 13.04, subdivision 3), N may gain access (listen) to the audiotape of his/her 911 telephone call. Thus, the Commissioner is in agreement with Mr. McCloskey that N may listen free of charge to the audiotape of N's 911 telephone call.

In regard to the second issue raised by N, the answer, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, is no. A written transcript, prepared from the audio recording of a 911 call is, in most cases, public data. However, in order for a member of the public to obtain a transcript, s/he must pay the actual cost of transcribing the call. Therefore, N cannot obtain a transcript of a 911 telephone call, in which s/he was not the person making the call, free of charge.

However, even if N were willing to pay for a transcript of a 911 call, there may be some instances in which N, as a member of the public, cannot gain access to a transcript, or portions of a transcript. If data contained in an audio recording were to reveal the identity of an individual otherwise protected under Section 13.82, subdivision 10, then those same data in transcript form, would be private data and would not be accessible to N. In his response, Mr. McCloskey wrote, See Section 13.82, Subd. 10 (f) also. Based on this comment, it appears St. Paul has determined that the written transcript requested by N would reveal the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 10.

Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (f), gives authority to a law enforcement agency to withhold data when the release of those data would reveal the identity of a person who placed a call to a 911 system and (1) the agency determines that revealing the identity may threaten the personal safety or property of any person, or (2) the object of the call is to receive help in a mental health emergency. Therefore, if the above criteria have been satisfied, a portion of the transcript of the call would be private data on the individual making the call and, thus, would not be accessible to N.

In regard to N's third issue, the Commissioner agrees with St. Paul's position. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise so McCloskey wrote, Absent something in the exchange between the dispatcher and officer that would be protected by statute, [N] would be entitled to review the tape.

In a letter dated June 11, 1996, N made a request to St. Paul Police Chief Finney for, among other items of data, a transcript of what the dispatcher told [the officers responding to N's 911 call. It is not clear from the various correspondence between N and PIPA staff whether or when St. Paul responded to this part of N's request. However, it does appear that St. Paul is willing to provide N with access to any of the public data contained in the dispatch tape.

In regard to the fourth issue raised by N, Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states:

It appears that N, in a letter dated June 11, 1996, made a request for a transcript of both his/her 911 call to St. Paul, and the related communications between the dispatcher and the responding officer(s). It also appears that St. Paul responded to that request in a letter dated June 21, 1996. Mr. Neuberger of the Internal Affairs Unit wrote, ...if you decide to purchase the transcript and taped copy of your 9-1-1 calls, we will require pre-payment of $27.32.

Section 13.04, subdivision 3, explicitly states that if an entity is unable to comply with a request for access to data (regardless of whether the request is for copies or to inspect) within five working days, the entity must so inform the data requestor. In the present situation, while St. Paul apparently did respond to N within the 10 day time frame, it does not appear that St. Paul informed N that a response could not be issued within five working days of June 11, 1996. Therefore, in regard to Issue 1, St. Paul has not complied with the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3.

The situation is less clear in regard to St. Paul's response to the data described in Issue 3. Again, it appears that N made his/her request for access to those data in a letter dated June 11, 1996. However, it is not apparent if or when St. Paul issued a response. In his response, Mr. McCloskey wrote, [N] has had numerous conversations with Internal Affairs staff. [N] requests for data often changed....The point to be made is that there were several time lags and multiple conversations in dealing with [N] and [N's] changing requests.

Thus, based on the information provided, it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether St. Paul responded appropriately to N's request for data referenced in Issue 3.

In regard to the fifth issue raise by N, Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, provides that a person requesting a transcript must pay the actual cost of transcribing the call, in addition to any other applicable costs provided under Section 13.03, subdivision 3. In turn, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that a person may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the costs of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling...the copies of the data...but may not charge for separating public from not public data.

In arguing that a transcription cost of $27.82 is permissible under the statute, Mr. McCloskey stated, This represented the one hour that it took a police sergeant to access the tape. This is a laborious process given the volume of calls that are on a master tape maintained in our communications center. It should be noted that the time of the Internal Affairs staff including the secretary who typed the transcription are not included in the charge. While Section 13.03, subdivision 3, does provide that government entities may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, it also provides that government enities may not charge for separating public from private data.

In this instance, St. Paul's only explanation of the $27.82 charge is that it represents one hour for a sergeant to access the tape. Whether that hour represents the time required to search for data, to separate public from private data, or to conduct other activities is not clear. Therefore, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the charge assessed N is allowable under Chapter 13.

Opinion: