To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
February 14, 1994; Hennepin County
2/14/1994 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 24, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Jan Dietrich, a resident of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. The facts that Ms. Dietrich alleged in her request were as follows.On December 29, 1993, Ms. Dietrich went to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) and requested an arrest record on an individual. She was informed by a staff person that it was the policy of the HCSO that this information was not available to Ms. Dietrich unless the person whose arrest record she sought authorized release of the information to her. Ms. Dietrich stated that she was able to get arrest records of this nature from both the Minneapolis Police Department and the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office. According to Ms. Dietrich she then asked a supervisor in the HCSO why the HCSO had this policy and . . . I was told it was the law that all arrest records were kept confidential without a release. (Ms. Dietrich did not identify this supervisor by name.) There was some further discussion and conjecture with this supervisor about the basis for the HCSO policy. According to Ms. Dietrich the supervisor then told her she could review daily arrest logs which appeared to be several pages thick for just one day of arrests. There was some further discussion about what appeared to Ms. Dietrich as inconsistent treatment of what she called computerized arrest records and the daily arrest log. Ms. Dietrich went on to state that the supervisor had told her that information about arrests could be released if the individual identified in the arrest record signed a release of information. According to Ms. Dietrich, the supervisor told her that this release need not be notarized. Subsequently Ms. Dietrich brought in a signed release from the person whose arrest record she wanted and the record was provided. Ms. Dietrich concluded her description of this dispute by asking the Commissioner to issue an opinion concerning the issue described below. In response to Ms. Dietrich's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration wrote to Don Omodt, the Sheriff of Hennepin County. The purposes of this letter, dated January 24, 1994, were to inform Sheriff Omodt of Ms. Dietrich's request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask the sheriff or his attorney to provide any information or support for the position of his office that would explain HCSO's handling of Ms. Dietrich's request, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. The letter also asked the sheriff to describe what kinds of indices are used in conjunction with arrest records and other systems of data on individuals maintained by the Sheriff's Office. On February 10, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from the HCSO signed by Mr. Ovide L. LaBerge, the HCSO chief deputy. He stated that Ms. Dietrich's description of her attempts to get access to arrest records reflected a misunderstanding on Ms. Dietrich's part as to the accessibility of the data she was requesting under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and hereinafter MGDPA. . It was his opinion that when she referred to arrest data, that Ms. Dietrich was referring to the chronological arrest history of individuals who have been arrested. According to him, the only historical data that the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (HCADC) maintains on inmates resident in that facility is data relating to an inmate's prior detention in the HCADC and that information is not attributable to any arrests made by the HCSO. In Mr. LaBerge's view, data about a person's history of incarceration at HCADC is not arrest data as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 2 of the MGDPA. Mr. LaBerge also pointed out that the arrest data that is made public by Section 13.82, subdivision 2 is public in the agency that originated the arrest. Because the HCADC is not an arresting agency, it does not qualify as the originating agency under the MGDPA. He stated the HCADC does maintain some data that is identified by the MGDPA as arrest data. Specifically, he referred to the portion of the statutory listing (found in Section 13.82, subdivision 2) of what constitutes arrest data that says that the date, time and legal basis for any transfer of custody and the identity of the agency or person who received custody are part of arrest data and are public. He stated this data is contained on HCADC intake sheets and that Ms. Dietrich incorrectly referred to those sheets as daily arrest logs. He also stated these intake sheets were maintained by the Jail Records Unit of the HCSO. Mr. LaBerge then stated that with the exception of the partial arrest data, described above, . . . all data on current and former HCADC inmates maintained by the Jail Records Unit is 'corrections and detention data' as defined under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, subd. 1. . . . He quoted the definition of corrections and detention data from Section 13.85 of the MGDPA. He stated it was the policy of the HCADC that detention data covered by Section 13.85 will be released to the public if the data are either reflected in court records or are released by valid authorization executed by the subject of the detention data. It was his opinion that these interpretations of the applicable MGDPA provisions are consistent with the legislative intent to guard against secret arrests by police agencies. Lastly, Mr. LaBerge pointed out it was the policy of the HCADC that any signature of a data subject on a release of data form should be the subject of reasonable efforts by HCSO personnel to verify authenticity. Ms. Dietrich's comments about alleged failure of HCSO personnel has lead the HCSO to conduct an internal investigation of the Records Unit.
Issue:
In her request, Ms. Dietrich stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner's opinion as follows:
Discussion:
In her letter, Ms. Dietrich describes her attempts to get arrest records from the HCSO. She did not provide any information about whether the individual whose record she sought had been arrested by the HCSO or by some other law enforcement agency in Hennepin County. In his response letter, Mr. Laberge indicates that Ms. Dietrich made her initial request for an arrest record by going to the Jail Records Unit at the HCSO. For a member of the public who may not be knowledgeable about the detailed operation and organization of a government agency, such as a sheriff's office, this may have appeared to be the appropriate office to contact to receive an arrest record. It should be emphasized that Ms. Dietrich did not state why she made her request to the Jail Records Unit. She may have just found this office or she may have been directed there by other personnel of HCSO. In any case, her approach to this particular office of the HCSO then began to dictate what kind of responses she would receive from that particular portion of the HCSO. Those responses directly implicate the issues Ms. Dietrich raised in her request for an opinion.
As Mr. LaBerge appears to indicate in his letter, the Jail Unit of the HCSO primarily maintains records on individuals because they were detained in the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center. Most of those individuals are or were incarcerated in the HCADC because they were arrested by other police agencies located within Hennepin County. After their arrest, they were transferred to the HCADC because it is the primary holding facility for arrested persons within Hennepin County. Because they perform this function of housing prisoners who have been arrested and are awaiting trial, sheriffs expressed concern, when the arrest data provision of Section 13.82 was being developed, that they would become burdened with the responsibility for providing all arrest data to the public. To address that concern, the legislature added to the treatment of arrest data, the language that states that arrest data . . . shall be public at all times in the originating agency. Originating agency means the agency that originated the arrest of the individual. In his response, Mr. LaBerge makes it clear that because of this language on originating agency, the HCSO only feels obligated to make available to the public that portion of the arrest data that he calls daily intake sheets, i.e. data indicating information about the transfer of custody of an individual to the HCSO. Ms. Dietrich indicates that another sheriff's office is providing complete arrest data to the public. Given the language of Section 13.82, subdivision 2, that is clearly a choice that a sheriff's office can make . It appears the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office chooses to make all arrest data available to the public. Hennepin County chooses to send members of the public to the agency that originated the arrest if the member of the public wants arrest data that goes beyond the transfer kinds of data described above. These choices about how to relate to the public on the subject of access to arrest data in sheriff's offices, where the sheriff's office did not originate arrest, have been left up to those offices by the MGDPA. It must be emphasized that if the HCSO is the law enforcement agency that originated an arrest, that it is obligated by the provisions of the MGDPA to make all of the arrest data listed in Section 13.82, subdivision 2 available to the public. Given the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Chapter l205.0300, the HCSO should have in place, or if it has not done so, should put into place policies and procedures to assure that the public is given convenient access to arrest data and other public data maintained by the HCSO. This leads to a discussion of the second point raised by Ms. Dietrich in her request. To the extent that the HCSO is maintaining the portions of arrest data, described by Mr. LaBerge in his letter as intake sheets, should the HCSO be providing that data under the names of arrested individual or by access to a daily log. In seeking a response to Ms. Dietrich's request for an opinion, PIPA asked the HCSO to provide information about the indices that the HCSO uses to access its data on individuals. This information was not provided. Even though it would be helpful to know just exactly what tools are available to HCSO personnel to access data of that office, the MGDPA does provide general guidance about a government entity's obligations in handling requests for access to public data by the public. The MGDPA requires that each responsible authority, and in the case of the HCSO, Sheriff Omodt is the responsible authority, keep their records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use by the public. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.) Each responsible authority is also required to establish procedures to insure that requests for public access to government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.) In the specific instance of arrest data, or in the case of the portion of arrest data that is maintained by the Jail Records Unit concerning individuals transferred to the custody of the HCSO, the MGDPA states that part of the arrest data that is public are the names of adult individuals who are arrested. Given the complexity of the HCSO operation, it would be quite surprising if the HCSO is not using some kind of master name index to reference by name the various transactions it has with individuals. Given the general requirements of section 13.03, as described above, and the specific requirement that arrest data and portions thereof include names of arrested individuals, HCSO should be able to provide access to full arrest data on arrests it originates and partial custody transfer data by the name of the arrested individual. By doing so, the HCSO will be in compliance with Sections 13.03 and 13.82. The legislature has stated a very strong policy toward ensuring easy public access to public government data since 1979. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1979, Chapter 328.) In 1981, the legislature sorted out and provided very detailed guidance to law enforcement agencies about the types and elements of data they must make available to the public. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1981, Chapter 311.) Given the strong public interest in public safety issues and the clear guidance provided by the legislature, law enforcement agencies should be putting in place policies and procedures, consistent with the MGDPA, that facilitate public access to the public government data of those agencies. The HCSO should review its existing policies and procedures to see how well they comply with these legislative objectives. The experience Ms. Dietrich described in her request for an opinion indicates that those procedures could be improved. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Dietrich is as follows:
Signed:
Debra Rae Anderson
Dated: February 14, 1994
|
Law enforcement data
Arrest data
