Open Records Decision No. 243
June 4, 1980

	Re:  Whether a police department is required by the Open Records Act to compile 
a list of all persons arrested under a particular statute within a stated time period.

Lee E. Holt
Dallas City Attorney
City Hall
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Mr. Holt:

	You have requested our decision as to whether the Dallas Police Department is 
required by the Open Records Act to compile and furnish to the public a list of all 
persons arrested for and convicted of prostitution and public lewdness since January 1, 
1977.  You explain that the Department does not maintain such lists.  You have also 
received a request for a list which reveals the “time, date, place and arrest number” of 
each person arrested for public lewdness.

	This office has long held that an agency is not required to “compile or extract . . . 
information if it can be made available by giving the requestor access to the records 
themselves.”  Open Records Decision No. 127 (1976).  See Open Records Decision No. 
87 (1975).  In Open Records Decision No. 144 (1976), it was held:

. . . even though conviction information may be a matter of public 
record where the conviction occurred, the Open Records Act does 
not require a law enforcement agency to search its records and 
notations to disclose that conviction information in response to an 
inquiry by a member of the public or press.

	In this instance, the arrest information may be compiled by any person who 
examines the daily police blotter and/or arrest sheet, which as a rule indicate the names 
of all individuals arrested within a 24-hour period, together with a notation of the offense 
charged.  The daily police blotter and arrest sheet were specifically held to be public 
information in Houston Chronicle v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Civ. App.--
Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976).  
See also Open Records Decision No. 127 (1976).  Likewise, conviction information may 
be obtained from court records.  We note additionally that providing compilations of the 
sort requested is the type of activity sought to be prohibited by 28 C.F.R., part 20.  See 
Houston Chronicle, supra, at 188.

Very truly yours,

Mark White
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General

Ted L. Hartley
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

C. Robert Heath, Chairman
Jon Bible
Susan Garrison
Rick Gilpin
Bill Willis