To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
February 12, 1997; City of Menahga
2/12/1997 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: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 December 23, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from the parents of Y, a minor. In that letter, Y's parents described a dissemination of information by personnel of the City of Menahga Police Department. Mr. and Mrs. Y enclosed copies of related correspondence. In response to Mr. and Mrs. Y's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Char West, Clerk-Treasurer-Administrator, City of Menahga. The purposes of this letter, dated December 30, 1996, were to inform Ms. West of Mr. and Mrs. Y's request, to ask her or the City's attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On January 9, 1997, PIPA received a response from Ms. West. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. and Mrs. Y, their child (Y), who was fifteen at the time, was involved in a traffic accident. Y was taken to a hospital, where apparently [s/he] was placed under arrest. Mr. and Mrs. Y enclosed a copy of an Implied Consent Advisory that states that Y was placed under arrest for driving, operating, or controlling a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Y was charged with (1) driving under the influence of alcohol, (2) minor consumption of alcohol, and (3) reckless driving. Shortly after the accident, a local newspaper, the Review Messenger, printed a photograph of the accident scene. The caption included Y's name and age. When questioned by Mr. and Mrs. Y, the newspaper reporter said that he had received the information from the police. During the course of the City Police Department's investigation, Officer Dan Stacey is alleged to have made comments to, or in the presence of, friends of Y. Those comments included that [Y] will probably lose [her/his] license until [age] 21 and that [Y] had been thrown from the car. When Mrs. Y asked Officer Stacey about one of those incidents, he responded that he and Gary were just talking about the accident. In her response, Ms. West stated: [t]he only dissemination of information was made to the newspaper regarding the traffic accident, as permitted under MN Stat. 13.82, subd. 4. I do not believe that the information released to the newspaper on this individual would be restricted under MN Stat. 13.82, subd. 10 and as no arrest was made, I do not feel there was a violation of MN Stat. 13.82, subd.2.
Issue:
In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 and Section 260.161 provide guidance on the handling of data concerning juveniles involved in incidents requiring law enforcement services. An examination of those statutory provisions reveals the following.
Section 13.82, subdivision 2, lists a number of elements of data associated with an arrest that are public data. In the case of juveniles who are cited, arrested, incarcerated or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty, only the juvenile's age and gender are public. Section 13.82, subdivision 3, provides that certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies that document requests for law enforcement services are always public data. Section 13.82, subdivision 4, provides that certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies that document an agency's response to requests for service or that describe actions taken by an agency on its own initiative are also public data. This subdivision also provides means by which the identities of certain individuals may be protected. The data elements specified in these subdivisions either do not by their nature identify juveniles, or if the data are about juveniles who are victims or witnesses, the data are to be treated the same as data on adult victims or witnesses. (See also Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.82, subdivision 10 and 260.161, subdivision 3.) In determining the classification of data on juvenile offenders, the provisions of Section 13.82, must be read in conjunction with Section 260.161. Section 260.161 classifies and regulates data about juveniles held by the court system and by law enforcement agencies. Subdivision 3 specifies, subject to certain exceptions, that law enforcement records on children, who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts, are private data.
Section 260.161, subdivision 3 (d) provides, in relevant part:
Thus, data about juveniles involved in minor traffic offensesare public as authorized under Section 13.82, subdivision 4. Section 290.193 does not provide a definition of minor traffic offense. However, Y was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, which is defined by Section 260.193, subdivision 1 (c) (2), as an adult court traffic offense, which is not a minor traffic offense. It then follows that the data be treated as provided in Section 260.161, subdivision 3 (d), i.e., as private. In Y's case, Section 13.82, subdivision 4, is not applicable. Mr. and Mrs. Y and the City disagree about whether or not Y was placed under arrest. However, the classification of the data is determined by Section 260.161. Whether an arrest was involved is not relevant. Mr. and Mrs. Y also raised the question of dissemination of data about Y by City employees to persons other than the media. Ms. West did not address that issue directly; however, Menahga Chief of Police James H. Killmer did so in a letter to Ms. West. In that letter, Chief Killmer said that the investigating officer conducted a normal follow-up to a traffic accident. Chief Killmer also stated that the individual Officer Stacey spoke with on one of the occasions mentioned by Mr. and Mrs. Y, Gary, . . . was Gary Ryhti, another police officer from my department. Gary was at the accident scene and assisted in removal of the vehicle. I find nothing unusual about police officers discussing information about this accident or any other accident. . . . Section 13.05, subdivision 5, provides that Responsible Authorities . . . establish appropriate security safeguards . . . . for all data on individuals. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that access to private data within a government entity is limited to those whose work assignments reasonably require access. Therefore, Officers Stacey and Ryhti were authorized to discuss Y's accident. However, by definition, private data are not accessible by the public. In situations in which government agents are disseminating not public data, those agents are obligated to take reasonable measures to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of those data are afforded the protections provided by statute. Any other conclusion would vitiate those protections. From the information provided, the police officers may have discussed private data about Y in a manner that allowed access to those data by unauthorized persons. The City had an obligation to ensure that such an event did not occur. The Commissioner acknowledges that the interrelationships among the various statutory provisions that regulate data about juveniles involved in traffic accidents are confusing. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Y is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: February 12, 1997 |
Law enforcement data
Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)
Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)
Traffic accidents (169.09)
