Open Records Decision No. 297
December 21, 1981

	Re:  Whether investigation of traffic ticket fixing is subject to public disclosure 
under the Open Records Act

Honorable John C. Ross
Lubbock City Attorney
P. O. Box 2000
Lubbock, Texas  79457

Dear Mr. Ross:

	You have requested our decision as to whether a report of an investigation into 
traffic ticket fixing is available to the public under the Open Records, Act, article 
6252-17a, V.T.C.S.

	On March 10, 1981 the internal auditor of the city of Lubbock submitted to the 
city's director of finance a memorandum regarding a sampling of dismissed traffic 
tickets.  The report focused upon a group of 21 individuals who had had 127 tickets 
dismissed over a three-year period.  Of those 127 tickets, 118 were dismissed by a single 
municipal judge.  On May 5, the city manager turned over this report to the Lubbock 
Police Department for further investigation.  The report of the police investigation, dated 
May 13, 1981, consists of interviews with those individuals who had had multiple tickets 
dismissed, an affidavit from one such person, interviews with officers of the municipal 
court and with a bail bondsman who allegedly acted as a liaison between the individual 
and the court, and a cover letter summarizing the findings, drawing conclusions and 
making recommendations.

	The police investigation was submitted to the criminal district attorney on May 
14, 1981, and the judge involved was suspended.  On June 4, a grand jury returned a no 
bill against the judge.  On May 26, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct began an 
investigation into the matter.  The commission staff interviewed 18 of the individuals 
who had had tickets dismissed and the judge appeared before the commission.  On 
August 28, the commission announced that it had not found any evidence of financial 
gain by the judge and, as a result, it would take no disciplinary action against him. 
Although both the criminal investigation and the commission's investigation could be 
reopened if new evidence became available, neither investigation is active at this time.  
You have received a request for the original memo from the city's internal auditor as well 
as for the report of the police investigation which incorporates that memo.  You suggest 
that this material is excepted from disclosure by sections 3(a)(8) and 3(a)(11) of the 
Open Records Act.

	As we said in Open Records Decision No. 252 (1980), the availability of material 
from an inactive criminal investigatory file must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  
Information may be withheld even from a closed file if disclosure “will unduly interfere 
with law enforcement and crime prevention.”  Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 
1977).  See also, Open Records Decision No. 216 (1978).  Much of the information 
requested here consists of the names and statements of witnesses.  In our opinion, the 
names of these persons and their statements may be withheld if it is determined:

from an examination of the facts of the particular case that 
disclosure might either subject the witnesses to possible intimidation 
or harassment or harm the prospects of future cooperation between 
witnesses and law enforcement officers.

Open Records Decision No. 252.  Whether a witness was given an express promise of 
confidentiality is an important factor to be considered in reaching this decision, but it is 
not alone determinative either of disclosure or of non-disclosure.  If you make the 
requisite determination, as indicated supra, you may withhold the names and statements 
of witnesses, as well as the affidavit, under section 3(a)(8) of the Open Records Act.

	As to the cover letter accompanying the May 13 report of the police investigation, 
we do not believe that its disclosure could reasonably be said to “unduly interfere with 
law enforcement and crime prevention,” and thus, it is not excepted by section 3(a)(8).  
The second paragraph thereof, however, expresses the writer's opinion of the 
investigation and makes a recommendation.  As a result, it is excepted from disclosure 
under section 3(a)(11) of the act.  The remainder of the cover letter should be made 
available.  Attorney General Opinion MW-372 (1981); Open Records Decision No. 239 
(1980).

	The March 13 memorandum from the auditor to the director of finance is 
basically statistical, and it contains no advice, opinions or recommendations which would 
permit it to be excepted under section 3(a)(11).  Accordingly, that memo should be made 
available, along with its attachment, an extensive listing of persons who received 
multiple traffic tickets over a particular period.

Very truly yours,

Mark White
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General

Richard E. Gray III
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Walter Davis
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger