skip to content
Primary navigation

Opinion Library

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

Advisory Opinion 02-040

November 5, 2002; City of Bird Island

11/5/2002 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 September 12, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Mark R. Anfinson, on behalf of his client, the Olivia Times-Journal newspaper. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client's right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Bird Island Police Department.

In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Deb Lingl, City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City's position. On October 16, 2002, IPAD received a response from Jon C. Saunders, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.

According to Mr. Anfinson, a reporter for the Times-Journal was told by Bird Island Police Chief Dale Kennedy that he had received complaints about certain thefts and identified the person accused of these crimes. He also stated that someone from the police department had investigated these accusations. The City initially told the reporter that she could not have a copy of the incident report because a minor's name was in the report. When she asked for a redacted copy of the incident report, Chief Kennedy responded that he would not provide her with any information because the incident was still under investigation.

In a letter to the reporter, dated July 31, 2002, Mr. Saunders stated that the data the reporter was seeking were related to an ongoing open investigation file and were therefore not public. Mr. Saunders stated: I do not believe that your description of the documents you are seeking fit into any of [the exceptions that would make the data public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82.]

In a letter dated August 2, 2002, Mr. Anfinson wrote to Mr. Saunders: [i]t is difficult for me to believe that the police department did not collect any of the information referred to in [section 13.82,] subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 (for example, the time, date, and place of the action, or the identities of individual officers involved).

Mr. Saunders replied to Mr. Anfinson on August 2, 2002:

I have talked to Chief Kennedy concerning what information he has. After describing what information he has in his file, it is my opinion that he never took any actions to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty. In addition, it is my opinion after talking with Chief Kennedy, that he was never requested to provide law enforcement services to the public. Finally, it is my opinion, after talking with Dale Kennedy, that he was never asked to respond to a request for service by a member of the public. Therefore, it would appear that my original letter was correct when I indicated the information the Olivia Times Journal was requesting was investigative data created by a law enforcement agency in order to perform its duties, and therefore was not public data. [Emphasis his.]

In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson stated that it was his position that under the circumstances of this case, particularly in light of Mr. Saunders' acknowledgment that some information was collected, at least a portion of it must have constituted public law enforcement data pursuant to the subdivisions cited. In other words, not all of the data gathered by the police department could be purely investigative data, given the express provisions of subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 in section13.82.

In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Saunders stated: [t]he City of Bird Island has no desire to violate Minn. Stat. section13.82 by disclosing investigative data in violation of that Act or failing to disclose non-protected information. I simply made a decision on behalf of the City, which indicated that the information held by the City was investigative in nature and there was no information that was public data.


Issue:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Bird Island respond appropriately to a request for government data?



Discussion:

Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified at section 13.82. Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of section 13.82 contain descriptions of types of data and associated data elements that are always public.

Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, classify as public so-called request for service and response or incident data respectively. Request for service data are defined as data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document requests by the public for law enforcement services. Response or incident data are data which document the agency's response to a request for service, or which describe actions taken by the agency on its own initiative. (Section 13.82, subdivision 2, classifies data which document any actions taken to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty. Mr. Saunders stated that the police department took no such actions.)

Some examples of response or incident data specified at subdivision 6 are: date, time and place of the action; agencies, units of agencies and individual agency personnel participating in the action unless the identities of agency personnel qualify for protection under subdivision 17; and a brief factual reconstruction of events associated with the action.

Section 13.82, subdivision 7, provides, in pertinent part:

Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Inactive investigative data is public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17.

Mr. Saunders stated that section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, are not applicable to this situation, and that only subdivision 7 applies to the data in question. Mr. Saunders stated that the police department was never requested to provide law enforcement services to the public or asked to respond to a request for service by a member of the public. However, the Chief told the reporter that he had received complaints about certain thefts and that someone from the police department had investigated those accusations. Furthermore, subdivision 6 applies to actions taken by a law enforcement agency on its own initiative.

In accordance with section 13.82, subdivision 7, investigative data collected or created by the police department in order to prepare a case for the commission of a crime or offense are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active, and such data also are nonpublic if their release would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or reveal protected identities. Otherwise, under section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, request for service data and response or incident data are public and must be made available upon request. The City should review the data in light of the provisions of subdivisions 3 and 6, to determine the specific data elements that are public under those provisions, and provide the Times-Journal with same.


Opinion:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Bird Island did not respond appropriately to a request for government data.

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: November 5, 2002



Law enforcement data

Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)

Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)

Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)

back to top