Facts and Procedural History:
On June 19, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated June 16, 2003, from Paul Hannah, on behalf of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. In his letter, Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Minnesota Department of Corrections' response to a data request from the newspaper. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Hannah provided in a letter dated August 11, 2003.
IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Fabian, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Mr. Hannah's request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 14, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Hannah's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department's position. On September 2, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Fabian.
A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated July 23, 2002, Janet Roberts of the Pioneer Press wrote to Dan O'Brien, Assistant to the Department's Commissioner. In her letter, Ms. Roberts wrote, The Pioneer Press annually acquires an electronic copy of your DIS [Detention Information System] booking data, and I am writing to request an update. The last time we received the data, in April 2001, it covered bookings in all counties except Hennepin and Ramsey through the end of 2000. This time, we would like bookings through June 30, 2002.
The Department denied Ms. Roberts' request. In a letter dated April 21, 2003, Randolph Hartnett, Policy and Legal Services, wrote:
...Please be aware that it remains the position of the department that we are precluded from releasing this data under Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 and Minn. Stat. sections 299C.147 and 241.065.
...Minn. Stat. sections 299C. 147 and 241.065 (which contain identical language) specifically state that the data in the SSS [Statewide Supervision System] is private data as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12 , but is accessible to criminal justice agencies, the courts and public defenders....
You are correct that the data in the DIS system was previously regarded as public and was provided to the Pioneer Press. Currently, however, the sole source of this data to the department is through SSS. Consequently, we must regard it as private. According to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 4(a), [t]he classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with . . . a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency.
As we have noted previously, the data contained in the SSS is available at the local agencies that create it and may well be, in some cases, public...
Consequently, it is the department's position that while the booking data may well have been considered public previously and may well be public at its source in the local law enforcement agencies, when this data is collected together in the SSS, it is the intent of the legislature that it be private.
In his August 11, 2003, letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Hannah identified the specific booking data that the newspaper requested: name, date of birth, gender, race, reporting facility, register number, controlling agency, adult-juvenile code, Minnesota offense code, detention date, detention time in, reason being held, sentence start date, date of release, detention time out, reason being released, work release code, transaction type, and unusual prison behavior.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
-
| Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: booking data that previously were accessible to the public as part of the Detention Information System database? |
Discussion:
Before proceeding the Commissioner offers this distinction between data relating to conditional release and data relating to detention/booking. Data relating to conditional release are data that describe the conditions of a criminal offender's probation or parole, e.g., the fact that an offender can't drink alcohol, the fact that an offender has a curfew of 8 p.m., or the fact that an offender can leave his/her home only to go to work. Data relating to detention/booking have nothing to do with the conditions of an offender's release, but are data that identify an individual who has been booked and detained in a city or county jail. The name of the facility when the offender was detained, and when the offender was released also would be detention/booking data.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.147, classifies as private certain data the Department maintains. Subdivision 1 of section 299C.147 defines conditional release as probation, conditional release, and supervised release. Subdivision 2 of section 299C.147 states:
The department of corrections shall administer and maintain a computerized data system for the purpose of assisting criminal justice agencies in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of conditional release imposed on criminal offenders by a sentencing court or the commissioner of corrections. The adult data and juvenile data as defined in section 260B.171 in the statewide supervision system are private data as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12, but are accessible to criminal justice agencies as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 3a, to public defenders as provided in section 611.272, to all trial courts and appellate courts, and to criminal justice agencies in other states in the conduct of their official duties.
Subdivision 3 of section 299C.147 provides:
Only criminal justice agencies may submit data to the statewide supervision system and only persons who are authorized users under subdivision 2 may obtain data from the system. The commissioner of corrections may require that any or all information be submitted to the statewide supervision system. A consent to the release of data in the statewide supervision system from the individual who is the subject of the data is not effective.
It is important to understand the legislative history of section 299C.147. The Legislature adopted the original language in 1998. At that time, the computerized data system was referred to as the conditional release data system and was administered by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The system was described as having a purpose of assisting criminal justice agencies in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of conditional release imposed on criminal offenders by a sentencing court or the commissioner of corrections. The data in the system were classified as private.
The majority of the current language in section 299C. 147 reflects changes made by the 2002 Legislature. Responsibility for administering and maintaining the data in the conditional release system went from the BCA to the Department and the system's name was changed to the Statewide Supervision System (SSS). The other change relevant to this opinion is that the language designating the classification of the data went from ...data in the system are private data... to ...adult data and juvenile data...in the statewide supervision system are private data...
Ms. Fabian argues that section 299C.147 classifies the booking and detention data contained in the SSS as private. The Commissioner cannot agree with her assessment. The reason is that 299C.147 does not contain an explanation of the data that comprise the SSS and are classified as private. The stated purpose of the system is the same as it was in 1998, i.e., assisting criminal justice agencies in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of conditional release imposed on criminal offenders. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of section 299C.147 is that the 2002 language classifying adult and juvenile data as private relates only to conditional release data and not to the detention and booking data that previously were contained in the Detention Information System (DIS).
That said, the Commissioner acknowledges the Department's need to upgrade the antiquated DIS as well its attempt to conserve resources by combining the DIS system with the conditional release system. They are laudable goals. However, because the Department changed both the content of and the name of the data system, the 2002 amendments to section 299C.147 should have included language making it clear what data the Department intended to classify as private. In doing so, the Legislature would have been clear as to what data it was classifying as private in section 299C.147. The Commissioner notes he is concerned especially in cases such as this where a government entity, by moving data from one database to another, effectively changes the classification of the data from public to private.
The Commissioner does not believe section 299C.147 classifies the detention/booking data as private. The detention/booking data are submitted to the Department from the originating law enforcement agencies, where the data are classified as public. Section 13.03, subdivision 4(c), states that data disseminated from one government entity to another have the same classification in the receiving entity as in the providing entity. The Commissioner opines, therefore, that the detention/booking data in the SSS are public and that the Department did not respond appropriately to the newspaper's request for access to data.
Opinion:
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hannah raised is as follows:
| Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not respond appropriately to a request for access to booking data that previously were accessible to the public as part of the Detention Information System database. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 4(c), booking and detention data contained in the Statewide Supervision System database are public. |
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner
Dated: October 1, 2003
