Facts and Procedural History:

Amanda Eubanks, on behalf of the Center for Protest Law & Litigation (CPLL), asked for an advisory opinion regarding CPLL’s right to gain access to data from the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The Sheriff’s Office submitted comments in response to CPLL’s advisory opinion request.

On May 26, 2021, CPLL submitted a data request to the Sheriff’s Office, which included requests for the following:

1. All records reflecting communications, notes of discussions or meetings, and/or any correspondence involving R.H. 
2. All records reflecting communications, notes of discussion or meetings, and/or any correspondence involving T.K., including but not limited to, any emails involving a T.K.’s email address.

On May 27, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office responded to CPLL’s data request. In response to request number 1 above, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[w]e have no public data documents regarding this bullet despite a meeting with [R.H.]”

In response to request number 2 above, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “We have four emails from that address and two of them are Security Data and not public per state MN statue [sic]. No other PUBLIC data that you request exists except for your request, which would be redundant to include. I will cut and paste the emails below.”

CPLL sent a follow up email to the Sheriff’s Office requesting the statutory citation for any not public data withheld. The Sheriff’s Office indicated it withheld not public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2. 

CPLL sent an additional follow up to the to the Sheriff’s Office to confirm whether responsive data exists related to the first request above. CPLL further requested an explanation for the necessity of the security data classification, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subd. 2(b). 

The Sheriff’s Office responded, stating, “I feel my first email is clearly written and apologize you are having a tough time understanding it. I am extremely busy and if time allows I will consider another response, but I do feel I have responded with the requirements of the law.”

In response to follow up communications, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[t]here is no data, public, private, or otherwise in the regards to [a portion of the data request not addressed in this advisory opinion]….The security data has security information contained in the email. (about operations) [sic].” 

Issues:

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300)

Issue 1: Did the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office properly respond to a request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and a specified individual?

In Advisory Opinion 06-033, the Commissioner discussed appropriate responses to data requests, and stated, “[u]pon receipt of a request for access to government data under Chapter 13, the entity must either provide the requestor with access to the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.”

Additionally, in Advisory Opinion 05-030 the Commissioner stated, “it is important for government entities to be clear and unambiguous in their communications regarding data practices requests.”

Here, the Sheriff’s Office responded to request number 1 indicating there was no responsive public data. In additional communications, it was unclear whether there was responsive not public data, or whether no responsive data existed. 

At the time of CPLL’s advisory opinion request, the Sheriff’s Office had not provided further clarification or confirmation about the existence of additional responsive data.

In the comments submitted to the Commissioner, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[a]s I attempted to convey to the requestor, we have no data or correspondence other than what was provided [for request number 2], and a security document that was not related to the account.”

Based on the Sheriff’s Office’s comments, it appears there was no responsive data to CPLL’s request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and the individual identified in request number 1. The Sheriff’s Office’s initial response did not fully convey that to CPLL and was ambiguous. Therefore, the County did not properly respond to CPLL’s first request. 

Issue 2: Did the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office properly respond to a request for a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” after withholding responsive data as “security information” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37?

The Data Practices Act classifies all government data as public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), defines security information as: "government data the disclosure of which the responsible authority determines would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.” Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public.

The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2 may not be employed as a blanket classification. Government entities must evaluate the application of the security information classification on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner has noted that when government entities exercise this discretion, they must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would “likely lead to substantial jeopardy.” (See Advisory Opinions 01-029, 02-014.)

Section 13.37, subdivision 2(b) states, “[i]f a government entity denies a data request based on a determination that the data are security information, upon request, the government entity must provide a short description explaining the necessity for the classification.” 

Here, the Sheriff’s Office indicated two emails that were responsive to CPLL’s second request above contained security information. CPLL subsequently requested an explanation of the necessity for the security information classification. Initially the Sheriff’s Office did not provide the requested explanation. In subsequent communications, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[t]he security data has security information contained in the email. (about operations) [sic].”

The statement provided by the Sheriff’s Office suggests that the email contains security information “about operations.” CPLL asserts that the Sheriff’s Office did not properly respond to its request for a short description explaining the necessity of the security information classification. 

The Commissioner agrees with CPLL. Section 13.37, subdivision 2(b) requires government entities to provide a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” upon request. Here, the Sheriff’s Office reiterated that it considered the data “security information” and stated the data are “about operations.” It is the Commissioner’s opinion that this statement does not meet the requirements of section 13.37, subdivision 2(b). 

The Sheriff’s Office’s statement identifies a topic (“operations”) but does not include a description that explains why the security information classification is necessary. Merriam-Webster defines “explain” as “to make plain or understandable” or “to give the reason for or cause of.” The Commissioner believes a short description that sufficiently explains the necessity for the security information would make plain and provide reasons for such classification to help requesters understand why public disclosure of the information would be “likely to lead to substantial jeopardy.”

The Sheriff’s Office’s response that the data are “about operations” does not sufficiently make plain or provide reasons that would help the requester understand the necessity of the security information classification. As a result, the Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to CPPL’s request for the short description required by section 13.37, subdivision 2(b).

Finally, the Commissioner notes that the Sheriff’s Office copied and pasted the contents of the two responsive public emails in its response to CPLL’s request, rather than providing a copy of the public data to the requester. As discussed in Advisory Opinion 19-013, “where the data are public, the requester is entitled to access in the format and program in which it is maintained.”

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:

1. The Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office’s did not respond appropriately to CPLL’s request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and a specified individual, as the Sheriff’s Office’s response was ambiguous and did not properly indicate whether responsive data existed.
2. The Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to a request for a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” after withholding responsive data as “security information” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37.

Signed:

Alice Roberts-Davis
Commissioner

October 21, 2021