Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests data of which s/he is the subject, a government entity is required to respond within ten working days.

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. White wrote:

Brandt Richardson, the Dakota County Administrator, received a request dated January 15, 2004, from [X] for a copy of [X's] negotiated check number 1776, and asked me to respond to [X's] request. I immediately contacted Dakota County Financial Services personnel, who told me that the County does not have records of negotiated checks, and that individuals who write checks to the County must obtain these documents from their own records or from their own banks. I also learned that the Clerk of Court's office does keep copies of receipts of money paid into the court, and that these documents are stored on the TCIS (state court information) system located in that office. It was my understanding after speaking to Financial Services personnel and personnel in the Clerk of Court's office that [X] had already requested and been given a copy of the receipt for [X's payment] by [X's] check number 1776.

Ms. White stated that she then prepared a letter, which she saved on her computer in her email software. She did not mail the letter because she was aware that the address X provided with his/her data request was incorrect. Ms. White wrote, ...I knew from the litigation in which the County is involved with [X] that [X] did not live at the [address] that [X] gave us. Ms. White's draft letter, dated January 16, 2004, states, in part:

...In response to your request, the County does not have a copy of your cancelled check. Such a document would either be in your possession or in the possession of your bank. It is my understanding, however, that you have already received the TCIS print-out of the information you wanted from the Clerk of Court's office on January 14, 2004.

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. White noted that she sent a letter, dated March 18, 2004, to X. She wrote, At that time, [X] was communicating by email and this letter was emailed to [X]. Ms. White provided a copy of the March 18, 2004, letter, in which she stated, in relevant part:

With regard to your request for a copy of negotiated check no. 1776, the County responded to this request in January 2004. The County does not have copies of negotiated checks from third parties who make payments by check. Either you or your bank would have a copy of your negotiated checks. The County has a TCIS record of your trust deposit...which was copied from the TCIS screen and given to you in January. This is a public document, however, available from the district court TCIS system. It is not a record on file with the County Financial Services Department.

Ms. White concluded her comments to the Commissioner by stating:

...under normal circumstances the County's response to [X] would have been the contents of my letter dated January 16, 2004, telling [X] that we do not have the document [X] requested, and identifying the document [X] received (TCIS printout) as the only record we have. I did not send the letter, however, because of my good faith belief that we did not have [X's] current address and that mailing the letter to [the address X gave], would be futile....

Ms. White noted that the property address X used was in foreclosure and in December of 2003, the title was canceled and a new title was issued to a different owner. In the Findings, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Dakota County district court judge found that the premises were vacant and unoccupied.

As stated above, government entities must respond to requests from data subjects within ten working days. The Commissioner appreciates that Ms. White attempted to avoid sending the County's response to an address at which X no longer resides. However, the United States Postal Service offers a mail forwarding service. Thus, if X filed a mail forwarding notice, and Ms. White sent the County's response to X's last known address within ten days, the County's response would have been timely. If X has not filed a mail forwarding notice, the Commissioner assumes the Post Office would have returned the letter to the County indicating X no longer lived at the address and that it had no forwarding information on file. Although X would not have received the County's response, the County would have had documentation that it did everything possible, within reason, to answer X's request in a timely manner. Thus, the Commissioner's opinion is that the best way for the County to meet its obligation under section 13.04 would have been for Ms. White to send her letter to X at the address X provided. Because she did not, and did not communicate the County's response to X until X provided his/her email address in mid -March, the Commissioner finds that the County's response was not timely.

(The Commissioner adds that IPAD has sent written communications regarding this opinion to the address at which X apparently no longer resides. The Post Office has not returned, as undeliverable, any of those communications.)

A final note is in order. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. White stated that she was certain X had received, from the Clerk of Court's office via the TCIS system , a copy of X's receipt of his/her payment. The judiciary is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 (see section 13.90). Therefore, whether or not X received from the Clerk of Court's office a copy of the receipt for X's payment is irrelevant to this opinion. X's request was a data practices request made pursuant to Chapter 13.

Opinion:

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

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: April 27, 2004