Facts and Procedural History:
On April 19, 2006, IPAD received a letter from Eric Hageman, an attorney for X. In his letter, Mr. Hageman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.
In response to Mr. Hageman's request IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, responsible authority for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Hageman's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On May 9, 2006, IPAD received a response from Mr. Steiner.
A summary of the facts as Mr. Hageman presented them follows. Mr. Hageman represents X, the parent of a minor, Y. Y was injured while being arrested by the Minneapolis Police Department; subsequently X filed a complaint with the City Internal Affairs Unit ( IAU. ) In a letter dated December 14, 2005, the City notified X that the IAU had completed its investigation, and that [a]fter a thorough investigation, and case review, the complaint was sustained and discipline has been imposed. (Emphasis omitted.) The letter also stated, [u]nder Section 13.43 of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the law prohibits us from providing you with any further information about this case.
In an e-mail dated January 25, 2006, to Patrick Marzitelli, Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Hageman wrote: I would like to obtain all of the documents in the [IAU] file, including copies of all of the statements, police reports, medical records, etc. Please let me know if you anticipate any problems fulfilling this request.
Mr. Marzitelli responded by e-mail the same day and stated I'll look into this and report back to you no later than noon tomorrow. According to Mr. Hageman, Mr. Marzitelli faxed thirteen pages of documents to him on February 8, 2006.
Mr. Hageman stated to the Commissioner that he was unsatisfied with the City's response and so wrote to Mr. Steiner, in a letter dated March 10, 2006, and requested any and all materials contained in the Internal Affairs case unit related to the investigation of [X's] complaint . . . Mr. Hageman cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), stating that pursuant to same, the City was required to disclose as public data . . . 'the specific reasons for the [final disciplinary] action and data documenting the basis of the action'. He stated that if the City did not release the data, he would seek an advisory opinion from the Commissioner. Mr. Hageman referenced Advisory Opinion 97-048 in support of his position that the City should provide him with access to the data in question.
In a letter to Mr. Steiner dated March 29, 2006, Mr. Hageman repeated his March 10, 2006, request for access to all documentation related to X's IAU complaint, and reiterated his intention to seek this opinion.
In a letter dated April 12, 2006, Mr. Marzitelli wrote to Mr. Hageman:
To date, you have received those portions of the 05-49 which we have determined to be public. These portions included the discipline work sheets (MP-1408) which set out the final disposition for the sustained allegations in file. Any specific reasons for the discipline imposed would be set out on the 1408 form under 'Final Disposition' on the bottom of the second page of each 1408. The data documenting the basis for the discipline is enclosed herewith.
However, because 05-49 contains multiple officers (5) each having multiple allegations, the complete file cannot be released to you as it contains private personnel data about complaints for which no discipline resulted. The file, as it's been requested by you, has several outcomes for each officer and for each allegation.
Although you rely upon, Advisory Opinion 97-048, Opinion 97-048 stands for the unremarkable proposition that data documenting the basis for a disciplinary action is public. It is distinguishable because it does not address the issue of multiple data subjects with multiple allegations contained within the same file. In the case such as the present one, only the specific reasons for the discipline and the data documenting the basis for the discipline can be released to the public.
Issue:
Based on Mr. Hageman's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
-
| Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for all public data related to a Minneapolis Police Department Internal Affairs Unit investigation of a complaint? |
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Pursuant to section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Under section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to provide access to public data, even when that requires separating public from not public data.
Government data about current and former employees are classified at section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.
Here, X made a complaint against employees of the Minneapolis Police Department, which the IAU investigated. As a result of the investigation, some of the charges against some of the employees were sustained, and the City imposed disciplinary action. Mr. Steiner did not state explicitly that, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), final disposition of the disciplinary action has occurred, however, from the context, the Commissioner assumes that it has. According to Mr. Steiner, the IAU file contains a mixture of public and not public data.
In his April 12, 2006, letter to Mr. Hageman, Mr. Marzitelli informed him that the City had provided him with the public portions of the investigative file, but that the complete file was unavailable because there are multiple data subjects with multiple allegations contained within the same file.
In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:
In Mr. Hageman's April 17, 2006 letter he acknowledges that he is not entitled to release of the complete Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) file because some of the data therein relate to complaints for which no discipline resulted. The City agrees with Mr. Hageman on this point. Unfortunately, Mr. Hageman's position on this issue was not clear until the City received a copy of this letter to the Commissioner of Administration. Mr. Hageman now asserts 'that the City clearly misapprehend[ed] the nature of [his] narrowly-tailored request for public data'. Review of the correspondence leading up to his request for a Commissioner's Opinion does not support Mr. Hageman's current assertion that he was only asking for public data out of the file. Instead, his prior correspondence reasonably led the City staff to the conclusion that he was seeking access to an unredacted copy of the entire file based upon the fact that a couple of officers were disciplined as a result of the investigation, notwithstanding the fact that some allegations against those officers were not sustained and all allegations against other officers were not sustained. Thus, the correspondence trail between Mr. Hageman and the City was directed toward Mr. Hageman's apparent position that he should be entitled to an unredacted copy of the complete file.
Now that the issue in controversy has been resolved with Mr. Hageman's concession that the City was right as to its position that he was not entitled to an unredacted copy of the complete file, the remaining question is whether the City's production of data relating to the sustained allegations was sufficient. . . . . The City produced the documents reflecting the specific reasons for the discipline of [some of the officers investigated in connection with X's IAU complaint] and also produced a redacted copy of a memo describing a pre-disciplinary hearing that documented the basis for the action.
Mr. Hageman now claims that he should be entitled to other portions of the file, redacted to protect private data on other officers. Upon review of the file, the City agrees. We have completed the editing of the file and will provide Mr. Hageman today with a copy of edited Internal Affairs statements, police reports and photographs that address the issue of why the three officers were disciplined. In reviewing the file for this purpose, it became apparent that [IAU] obtained medical data on the juvenile pursuant to a signed release for the data that limited the Police Department's use to the investigation. It is the City's position that Mr. Hageman would not be entitled to the medical data on the juvenile because it was received pursuant to a limited release. In addition, to the extent that the photographs or the police reports would identify the arrested juvenile, they are protected pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 260B.171. It may be that Mr. Hageman represents the juvenile and would be able to obtain a release for the juvenile data, but to this point, he has not produced one. Accordingly, data identifying the juvenile have been redacted from the copy that is being produced for Mr. Hageman.
The Commissioner has several comments about the City's response to Mr. Hageman's request for access to data related to final disciplinary action. In its December 14, 2005, letter to X, informing him/her that the City had taken disciplinary action in response to her/his complaint, the City stated: [u]nder Section 13.43 of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the law prohibits us from providing you with any further information about this case. Clearly, under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), that statement is not correct.
Regarding Mr. Marzitelli's statement to Mr. Hageman that the complete file cannot be released to you because it contains a mixture of public and private data on multiple data subjects, the Commissioner has issued numerous opinions that advise that government entities must provide access to public data, even if that requires them to separate public from not public data. Furthermore, Chapter 13 regulates access to government data, not documents, records or files.
In addition, Mr. Steiner suggests the City reasonably concluded that Mr. Hageman thought he was entitled to the complete, unredacted file, and its response was directed thus. According to Mr. Steiner, Mr. Hageman did not clarify his position that he sought only public data related to the investigation and resulting discipline until he requested this Opinion. However, in his March 10, 2006, follow-up to his earlier requests to the City for the data, Mr. Hageman cited section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), and stated that the City was required to disclose as public data . . . 'the specific reasons for the [final disciplinary] action and data documenting the basis of the action'. (Emphasis added.) The Commissioner does not agree with the City that Mr. Hageman was unclear as to the scope of his request. If the City needed to, it was obligated to seek clarification from Mr. Hageman promptly upon receipt of his request.
In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner acknowledges that the City did not provide Mr. Hageman with access to all of the data he requested and was entitled to, and that it was preparing to do so, nearly six months after his initial request. That response is neither prompt nor reasonable.
Opinion:
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hageman raised is as follows:
| The City of Minneapolis did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for all public data related to a Minneapolis Police Department Internal Affairs Unit investigation of a complaint. |
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner
Dated: June 6, 2006
|
