To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 12, 1997; Crow Wing County
5/12/1997 10:15:43 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:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On February 19, 1997, PIPA received a fax from Richard Olmstead. In his letter, Mr. Olmstead requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding an alleged violation of his rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by the Crow Wing County Sheriff's office. As a result of subsequent communication between Mr. Olmstead and PIPA staff, one issue was agreed upon. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dick Ross, Crow Wing County Sheriff, in response to Mr. Olmstead's request. The purposes of this letter dated April 3, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Olmstead's request and to ask him or the Sheriff's attorney to provide information or support for the Sheriff's position. PIPA received a response, dated April 23, 1997, from Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney. A summary of the facts, as presented by Mr. Olmstead, of this matter is as follows. On March 15, 1996, Mr. Olmstead was apparently at the Sheriff's office. A member of the media gained access to data contained in Initial Crime Reports (ICRs) that had been created during the past 24 hours. Mr. Olmstead was denied access to those same data. Mr. Olmstead also stated that in May of 1995, he became aware of a press policy apparently in use at that time. As part of his opinion request, Mr. Olmstead provided the Commissioner with a copy of a press policy of the Sheriff's office. This policy was accompanied with a letter dated February 19, 1991, from Sheriff Ross to Mr. Olmstead. In part, Sheriff Ross wrote, Enclosed is a copy of the Sheriff's Office policy regarding Community Relations and, Cooperation with the Press. It is unclear if this particular press policy was in existence in May of 1995. In his response, County Attorney Ryan wrote, Please be advised that Crow Wing County will be submitting no further information concerning this specific topic. Crow Wing County will rest on the current contents of your file concerning the same. Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Data created, collected, and maintained by law enforcement agencies, such as the Crow Wing County Sheriff's Office are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. Section 13.82 classifies some law enforcement data as public, some as private, and some as confidential.
It is unclear in this situation whether the data contained in the ICRs were classified, in whole or in part, as public, private, or confidential. If the data were public, anyone who requested access should have been able to gain access, including the media person and/or Mr. Olmstead. (See Sections 13.02, and 13.03, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.) If the data were private, in most cases, only the data subject and those persons within the entity whose work assignments reasonably required them to gain access to the data would have been able to gain access. Thus, if the data were private data about the media person, only s/he should have gained access. If the data were private data about Mr. Olmstead, only Mr. Olmstead should have gained access. (See Sections 13.02, 13.04, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400.) If the data were confidential, in most cases, only those persons within the entity whose work assignments reasonably required them to gain access to the data would have been able to gain access. Thus, neither the member of the media nor Mr. Olmstead should have gained access. (See Section 13.02, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0600.) The issue of this opinion is whether Mr. Olmstead's Chapter 13 rights were violated because data maintained by the Sheriff's Office were disseminated to a media person but were not disclosed to Mr. Olmstead. Based on the above-referenced statute sections, the only scenario in which the Sheriff's Office, pursuant to Chapter 13, should have granted access to the media person and denied access to Mr. Olmstead is if all the data in the ICRs were private data about the media person. Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, certain data collected by law enforcement agencies regarding arrests, requests for service, or responses to incidents are always public. Typically, those public data are contained in ICRs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that some of the data in the ICRs were public and should have been accessible to all members of the public, including Mr. Olmstead. If the data were public, Mr. Olmstead should have been able to gain access. If the data were private and/or confidential data about Mr. Olmstead, the media person should not have been granted access. Furthermore, if a policy in existence in the Sheriff's Office in 1991 was still in effect in 1995, the likelihood increases that Mr. Olmstead's Chapter 13 rights were violated. One relevant portion of the Community Relations, and Cooperation with the Press, policy states:
Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Olmstead is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 12, 1997 |
Law enforcement data
Initial crime report (ICR)
Media access policy
