To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 13, 1998; Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services
5/13/1998 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, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On March 17, 1998, PIPA received a fax dated March 16, 1998, from Teresa Graham. In her letter, Ms. Graham requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding access to data maintained by the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marie Ohman, Executive Director of the Board, in response to Ms. Graham's request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 23, 1998, were to inform her of Ms. Graham's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board's position. On March 31, 1998, PIPA received another correspondence from Ms. Graham. Ms. Graham argued that pursuant to Section 13.41, the data she had requested are public. In a letter dated April 1, 1998, PIPA sent Ms. Ohman a copy of Ms. Graham's March 31, 1998, letter and invited her to provide any additional comments in response to Ms. Graham's most recent communication. On April 1, 1998, PIPA received comments, dated March 31, 1998, from Michael Paul, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General. A summary of the facts according to Ms. Graham is as follows. On March 5, 1998, Ms. Graham met with staff at the Board to review public data in a licensure file on an individual licensed since 1988 as a private detective. Ms. Graham apparently was granted access to some of the data and denied access to other of the data. Also on March 5, Ms. Graham requested copies of data. Ms. Graham wrote, [Board staff] refused to provide them on that date and stated that she would first need to do a cost analysis. Ms. Graham further wrote, I have again requested copies of the data I viewed on March 5, 1998. [Staff] has admitted that she routinely charges 97 cents or $1.74 for a similar number of documents...However, she has implied that she will charge me whatever she chooses for these documents that would require a similar amount of time or less to copy. In his comments, Mr. Paul stated that Ms. Graham was denied access to the licensee's home address and telephone number, as well as the licensees' employees' home addresses and telephone numbers. Mr. Paul argued that such data are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. He did not discuss the issue of the copying charges except to state that Ms. Graham was provided with a free copy of the licensee's file to review at her leisure. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data collected, created, and maintained by the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.41. In his comments, Mr. Paul argued that under his reading of Section 13.41, a licensee's home address and telephone number are private, unless they are given as the designated contact address. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Paul. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.41, in relevant part, classifies the following data as private: data submitted by license applicants, other than their names and designated addresses. Clause (b) of Section 13.41, subdivision 2, states, in relevant part: An applicant for a license shall designate on the application a residence or business address and telephone number at which the applicant can be contacted in connection with the license application. When the Legislature enacted Section 13.41, its intent was to protect data about applicants, except for names and designated addresses, which are public. Then, as the Legislature provided for in Section 13.41, subdivision 4, only if a person is granted his/her license, do all the data contained in the application become public. There is no doubt that Section 13.41 is somewhat confusing. Although the Legislature has provided a situation in which an applicant is allowed to designate an address that will be public while s/he is still an applicant, once that person becomes a licensee, the application data also become public. Thus, if an applicant includes his/her home address on the application, those data will become public when the person is granted a license. In the present case, as Mr. Paul asserted, applicants to the Private Detective and Protective Agent Board are required to submit their home addresses, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 326.3382, subdivision 1 (1). This creates a situation in which the home addresses of such licensees will always be public. In terms of the home addresses and telephone numbers of the licensee's employees, the classification of such data depends upon whether the employees are applicants or licensees, or whether the data were collected as part of the original licensee's application. If the data are part of the original licensee's application, there is no provision classifying the data as not public. If any of the employees are, themselves, applicants for licensure, the home addresses are public, unless any of the employees have designated other addresses. If the employees are licensees, and the data are included in the applications, the home addresses and telephone numbers are public. Regarding the issue of a copying charge, Ms. Graham wrote that a Board staff person admitted she routinely charges 97 cents or $1.74 for a similar number of documents that are available...However she has implied that she will charge me whatever she chooses for these documents that would require a similar amount of time or less to copy. In his comments, Mr. Paul wrote that staff provided Ms. Graham with a free copy of the licensee's file to review at her leisure. Given that Ms. Graham was provided the data free of charge and that it is unclear whether the 97 cents or the $1.74 are per page fees, the Commissioner will not comment on the issue of copying charges. However, as the Commissioner has discussed in previous advisory opinions, Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provide clear guidelines on charging for copies of public government data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Graham is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 13, 1998 |
Legislative authority and intent
Licensing data
Licensing data (13.41)
Licensing data (13.41)
