Primary navigation

    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 01-064

    August 3, 2001; City of Minneapolis

    8/3/2001 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

    For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

    On April 17, 2001, IPA received a letter dated April 13, 2001, from James Erickson. In his letter, Mr. Erickson discussed the difficulty he was having gaining access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains. Upon subsequent conversations between Mr. Erickson and IPA staff, it was determined that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on matter listed below.

    IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jim Moore, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, in response to Mr. Erickson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 30, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Erickson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On June 11, 2001, IPA received a response, dated June 7, 2001, from Craig Steiner, responsible authority for the City.

    A summary of the facts as Mr. Erickson submitted them is as follows. Mr. Erickson is aware of a series of incidents that occurred on December 23, 1999, during which the assistance of the Minneapolis Police Department was requested. On that day, an individual committed suicide at Mr. Erickson's house. Subsequently, Mr. Erickson made requests for access to data regarding the suicide; specifically, the events that led up to the suicide. (Mr. Erickson's data requests are the subject of Advisory Opinion 00-076.)

    Apparently, the Minneapolis Police Department assigned two case numbers to the events surrounding the suicide, #MP99400432 and #MP99400462. Mr. Erickson's contention is that #MP99400432 does not reflect a complete recording of the events. He provided his accounting of #MP99400432 and stated, My friend's death by suicide with the shotgun approximately 2 laquo; hours later is documented extensively as Case #MP99400462. He wrote:

    As of this date, no official police record, statements, or incident reports generated by [the City] exist concerning Case #MP99400432. What does exist is a transcript from radio communications in which it is stated that one camo shotgun was recovered as well as almost everything I have described above.

    Mr. Erickson also stated, No mention of the transfer of the shotgun from [a neighbor's] property to my property is made.

    Mr. Erickson wrote, ...it seems almost incredulous that no officer statements or incident reports exist regarding the police transfer of my friend's firearm - not to mention the absence of an official report.

    Issue:

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

    Would the public's right to gain access to government data that describe actions taken by employees of the City of Minneapolis be frustrated if the City did not document these activities?

    Discussion:

    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, individuals have the rights to inspect and obtain copies of government data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, All officers and agencies of the state, counties, cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03 (access to public data), imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions, so that those records will be available for public inspection.

    Mr. Erickson asserts that the City has not created or maintained sufficient records surrounding #MP99400432. In his opinion request, he stated that he inspected the City's June 24, 1998, Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual. He provided relevant portions of this document to the Commissioner. Volume Four, Administrative Procedures, 4-601 (A) states:

    Officers shall make reports for crimes or incidents occurring, or originating in, the City of Minneapolis (12/06/92).

    In serious or major crimes, officers shall immediately dictate a report to a typist.

    If two or more officers are involved in an incident, the superior or senior officer involved is responsible for reviewing the reports for validity, completeness and clarity.

    Superior officers shall assume responsibility for all reports submitted by their subordinates. They shall review and sign, in the upper right hand corner, the station or unit copies within five days of submittal.

    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:

    [Section 15.17] requires all officials of municipal corporations such as the City to make and preserve all records necessary to full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. The City fully complied with this statutory requirement. Mr. Erickson complains that no narrative police report was written by police officers responding to the first call to his address on December 23, 1999. However, the fact that the officers provided police service at that address is well documented. Minneapolis Emergency Communication records reflect the dispatch of the officers to that location and the officers' response. The police response to the address is further verified and documented within the police report of Sergeant Alquire appended to Mr. Erickson's letter. Mr. Erickson's complaint, then, seems to relate not to the absence of an official record, but to the quality of such and the level of detail contained therein. What type of a police report is required of a police officer in a particular circumstance is a matter left to the sound discretion of the municipality and its police department. Here the Police Department has determined that no narrative report was required. The Official Records Statute does not require such a detailed description of every act taken by any public official.

    The Commissioner has the following comments. The City's position, as articulated by Mr. Steiner, is that the Police Department has met its obligation under section 15.17. Mr. Erickson argues there is a specific set of facts that the Police Department did not record, as well as the general lack of an official report. While Mr. Steiner is correct that the City has certain discretion regarding what data it records and maintains, it must meet the threshold provided in section 15.17; that is, the City must make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. (Emphasis added.)

    Apparently, the only data created about the first of the two police responses to Mr. Erickson's residence (Case #MP99400432) are those contained in the Emergency Communication Records. This document appears to be a log sheet documenting radio communications with the officers. Given Mr. Erickson's accounting of the events that occurred in relation to #MP99400432, it is not clear why the officers involved did not create a more detailed report of the incident. What little record the Department did create, does not enable the public to gain any understanding of the officers official activities in relation to their response to Mr. Erickson's request for assistance. There appears to be no record of what the officers did while in and around Mr. Erickson's home and why they did what they did.

    Further, as Mr. Erickson pointed out, the City has a manual that sets forth its policy regarding the creation of police reports. As stated above, the manual states, Officers shall make reports only for crimes or incidents occurring, or originating in, the City of Minneapolis. Mr. Steiner did not address the City's manual in his comments. Given that #MP99400432 originated out of a 911 call from Mr. Erickson, to which it appears more than one officer responded, it seems reasonable to conclude that officers would have created a report. However, this did not happen. It is the Commissioner's opinion, therefore, based on the information provided, that the City did not sufficiently demonstrate why it did not, in this case, produce a record that would fully and accurately document the activities conducted by the police officers dispatched to Mr. Erickson's home.

    Opinion:

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

    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota section 15.17, the public's right to gain access to government data that describe actions taken by employees of the City of Minneapolis would be frustrated if the City did not document these activities.

    Signed:

    David F. Fisher
    Commissioner

    Dated: August 3, 2001

    Law enforcement data

    Reports

    Obligation to maintain and preserve records

    back to top