To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
June 2, 2004; Le Sueur County Attorney
6/2/2004 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 April 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated April 18, 2004, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Le Sueur County Attorney's Office maintains. In response to Mr. Quiram's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brent Christian, the County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Quiram's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office's position. On May 12, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated May 10, 2004, from Mr. Christian. A summary of the facts as Mr. Quiram provided them is as follows. In a letter dated February 26, 2004, he wrote to Mr. Christian: In the mid-morning hours of July 28, 2003 you were out on my property, standing, parking your truck and walking in the road right of way inside of my farm. You were taking pictures of various features of my property.... You were collecting DATA, during normal work hours and in your official capacity. I request viewing of such data collected. Once viewing is provided I request a meaningful explanation as to the purpose and intended use of those photos and data.... I request from you the nature of the complaint that brought you out to my residence, name of the complainant, and the violation you and the deputy were collectively looking for. In his opinion request, Mr. Quiram stated, At the time of this writing, no answer has been received from this agency to allow me to view and inspect the requested data. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government entities must respond to data requests in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2). When the requestor is the data subject, the entity must respond within ten working days (see section 13.04). When the requestor is not the data subject, the entity must respond within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300). In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Christian wrote: ...I never received the letter dated February 26, 2004, from Mr. Quiram as is attached to your April 29, 2004 letter. However, it appears to be the same as letter dated December 17, 2003, from Wayne Quiram, which I did respond to... Mr. Quiram asserts he sent Mr. Christian a letter on or about February 26, 2004. Mr. Christian states that he did not receive the letter. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute. If Mr. Christian did not receive the request, his office was not required to respond and there is no issue involving Chapter 13. If Mr. Christian received the letter and did not respond, his office has not complied with Chapter 13. At this point, if Mr. Quiram still wishes to make a data request, he should re-submit his letter. Pursuant to Chapter 13, Mr. Christian is obligated to respond, with the following possible exception: If Mr. Quiram is the subject of the requested data and the data are classified as private, then section 13.04, subdivision 3, may apply. This subdivision states: After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual [have] been collected and created. A final note is in order. Mr. Quiram requested viewing of the data. While this probably means he wishes to inspect the data, as opposed to receiving copies, it is not clear. The Commissioner recommends that Mr. Quiram clarify this and future requests by indicating whether he wishes to inspect or receive copies of the data. If Mr. Quiram does not do so, the Commissioner recommends that the County Attorney's Office seek clarification from Mr. Quiram. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Quiram raised is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: June 2, 2004 |
Data subjects
Limit on frequency of access to data
