Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.84, was amended in 2000 to make birth date data explicitly public. The 1998 amendment to section 13.85 may alter the analysis in this opinion of the classification of birth date data under that section.

Facts and Procedural History:

Mr. Weissman initially called the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a bureau of the state Department of Public Safety, to ask how he could obtain information about a specific individual. In addition to the individual's name, Mr. Weissman knew that the individual had been convicted of a crime and had been incarcerated in the Hennepin County Workhouse. The person he spoke to at the BCA, told him that criminal history data was not accessible without the individual's birth date. She then referred him to Corrections as a possible source for the birth date information.

Mr. Weissman then contacted Corrections. Someone at Corrections told him that the Department's data were arranged in such a way that a birth date was needed to access criminal history data. Corrections staff suggested that he contact two other government agencies. Mr. Weissman was not able to get birth date information from one of those agencies. He did not mention what response, if any, he got from the other agency. Mr. Weissman then decided to ask for an opinion from the Commissioner to raise the issue as to whether the requirements of the two state agencies that citizens provide birth dates of individuals in requesting access to criminal history data violate the statutes providing general public access to government data and specific access to public criminal history data.

In his request for an opinion, after describing the issue summarized above, Mr. Weissman offered arguments as to why the two state departments should not be allowed to require the public to provide the date of birth of an individual when the member of the public requests access to the public criminal history data made public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87, subdivision 2. It was Mr. Weissman's position Corrections, when it requires the public to provide the birth date of an individual in seeking access to public criminal history data, is failing in its obligation to comply with the statutory requirement under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 that the Department make its public data conveniently accessible to the public. He also argued that this requirement effectively contravenes the legislative purpose in classifying certain criminal history data as public.

Mr. Weissman also set out, what he called a sub-issue concerning the classification status of birth date in the government data held by Corrections. It was Mr. Weissman's conclusion that Corrections treated birth date data as private data and his line of discussion implicitly asked whether that was a correct classification of birth date data by Corrections.

In response to Mr. Weissman's request, PIPA on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Frank W. Wood, the Commissioner and responsible authority for Corrections. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 1994, were to inform Commissioner Wood of Mr. Weissman's request, to ask Commissioner Wood or Correction's attorney to provide any information or support for Correction's position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.

On August 5, 1994, PIPA received a response from Ms. Jean M. Whitney, assistant to Commissioner Wood. She stated that Commissioner Wood had asked her to respond to PIPA's letter and that she would be providing responses to the questions raised in PIPA letter to Commissioner Wood. Ms. Whitney offered the following facts and arguments in support of Correction's position.

On the issue of public access to public criminal history data, Ms. Whitney pointed out that the statute cited by Mr. Weissman assigns responsibility for providing access to those data to the Department of Public Safety and not to Corrections. She then described the types of information maintained about offenders by Corrections and how access is provided to the data.

Ms. Whitney then discussed the basis for Correction's position that birth date data held by the Department are classified as private data. She explained that data on offenders that is maintained by Corrections is classified by Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85. It is the position of the Department that both of those sections classify birth date data as private. The operation of Section 13.84 classifies birth date data as private because under Section 13.84 any data that is not assigned a classification of public or confidential are classified as private. Under Section 13.85, Corrections has determined that birth date data are personal data and under the definitions and classifications set forth in Section 13.85, personal data are private. She added that Corrections has always treated birth date data on offenders as private.

Issues:

Discussion:

As to the second issue raised by Mr. Weissman, it is the position of Corrections that birth date data are properly classified by Corrections as private data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85. Examination of those sections leads to a conclusion that for Corrections to treat birth date data as private is appropriate given the language of the two sections. However, in the interest of consistency, Corrections should determine whether, in its interaction with the public, it actually treats birth date data as private. It appears that Corrections disseminates birth date data to the public by confirming for public requestors that a named individual with a birth date the same as that provided by the requestor is or was under the supervision of Corrections. To confirm the existence and congruence of a piece of private data effectively disseminates that private data to the public. However, in the instance described by Mr. Weissman, because he was requesting data made private by Sections 13.84 and 13.85, Corrections was under no obligation to provide him with the data.

Opinion: