March 13, 2002; City of Brainerd
3/13/2002 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 January 15, 2002, IPA received a letter from X and Y. In their letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their rights concerning certain data maintained by the City of Brainerd. In response to X and Y's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Bolduc, Chief of the Brainerd Police Department. The purposes of this letter, dated January 18, 2002, were to inform him of X and Y's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. IPA did not receive a response from the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In letters dated August 9, 2000, Daniel A. Eller, attorney for X and Y, wrote to Frank Ball, then Chief of Police for Brainerd: Please be advised that I represent [X or Y] regarding the above referenced matter which was dismissed by the Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan, on or about May 8, 2000. At this time, on behalf of [X or Y], I hereby demand returned to [X or Y] all finger and thumb prints, distinctive physical mark identification data and other identification [sic] along with copies and duplicates of them to my office. This request is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299C.11(d) [sic]. All charges were dismissed in this matter prior to the determination of probable cause. Which probable cause hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2000. In a letter dated August 15, 2000, Lyman D. Dahl, Acting Chief of Police for Brainerd, responded: [w]e would be obliged to respond to your request, via a court order to our department to release the requested documentation. Issues:In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:Note: the Commissioner addresses the same issues, involving other government entities, in Advisory Opinions 02-009 and 02-010. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, certain identification data such as finger and thumb prints, and photographs, etc., are required to be collected by law enforcement agencies under circumstances related to the arrest of an individual. Pursuant to section 299C.11(b), under certain conditions a government entity shall, upon demand, return to the arrested person finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them. Section 299C.10 does not require the data subject to provide a court order to accomplish the return of identification data. It simply states that upon demand of the data subject, the government entity is to do so. Accordingly, if the conditions specified at section 299C.11(b), hold here, then the City of Brainerd should return to X and Y, immediately, any finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them that it maintains. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: March 13, 2002 |
