To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
December 22, 2000; City of Minneapolis
12/22/2000 10:17:43 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On November 2, 2000, IPA received a letter dated same from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding X's access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jim Moore, Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 14, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On November 28, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Moore, Assistant City Attorney. A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X is aware of a series of incidents that occurred on December 23, 1999, during which the assistance of the Minneapolis Police Department was requested. An individual committed suicide on that day. A related meeting involving various City staff and neighbors, including X, occurred in June of 2000. X wrote, Ms. Culp [attorney for the police department] had also refused to grant me access to the complete police report of the incident - stating that it was not public. On August 1st I received a copy of the complete police report from a local newspaper reporter. X also provided a copy of a related letter the Mayor wrote to X, dated July 5, 2000. She wrote, As you know, a copy of Minneapolis Police Department records is available to [the deceased victim's personal representative] who has the legal authority to act on behalf of the estate. Issue:In X's request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 6 (2000) (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. Subdivision 7 (2000) classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active. When the investigation is no longer active, within the meaning of subdivision 7 (2000), then criminal investigative data are classified as public, with certain exceptions as provided in subdivisions 7 (2000) and 17 (2000). The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 (2000), are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data were specified in order to ensure that they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7 (2000). The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. Accordingly, the only data that are classified as not public under Section 13.82 are the specific data described in the various subdivisions of section 13.82 or in other statutes regulating law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions 97-023 and 97-024.) At issue in this opinion is whether Minneapolis responded appropriately to a data request X made at a meeting in June 2000. In his response, Mr. Moore did not directly address the City's response to the June 2000 request except to say, The City does not believe that Ms. Culp told X at the June meeting that the police report was not public. In fact, most of the report was released to X in January, 2000. Assuming X made a request (the City did not refute this) at the meeting for a copy of the police report relating to an incident that occurred on December 23, 1999, the City was required to provide X with the report - minus any not public data - in a prompt and reasonable manner and within a reasonable time. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300. Because the City, in its comments, did not provide any information as to whether or how it responded to X, the Commissioner can opine only that Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to X's request. If the City has not yet provided the report to X, it should do so immediately. The Commissioner has one additional comment. In his comments, Mr. Moore wrote that when the City released a copy of the report to X in January, the City redacted certain data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.769 (1999; section repealed by 2000 Legislature) (penalty for unauthorized release of patient information) and 13.384 (2000) (medical data). However, Mr. Moore wrote that later, when the City released copies of the reports to the media, it was clear that the references to physical or mental conditions of the deceased were not derived from medical records and were not subject to statutory privacy interests. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 1, a government entity is required to be aware of how its data are classified. It is not appropriate for the City to determine a data classification and then, at a later point in time, change its mind. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: December 22, 2000 |
