Open Records Decision No. 329
December 20, 1982

Re:  Personnel file and internal investigation of police officer pursuant to complaint 
under article 6252-20, V.T.C.S.

Mr. Wes Griggs
City Attorney
City of West Columbia
P. O. Box 517
West Columbia, Texas  77486

Dear Mr. Griggs:

	You have requested our decision under the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, 
V.T.C.S., as to whether information relating to a former police officer is available to the 
public.

	A reporter has requested the following information about a former police officer 
who resigned from the police department of the city of West Columbia in February 1980:  
age, law enforcement background, previous experience and employment, reasons for the 
officer's resignation, description of disciplinary action taken, and names of persons 
interviewed in the course of a specific investigation into the officer's conduct.  You 
suggest that the information is excepted from disclosure by sections 3(a)(2), (3) and (8) 
of the Open Records Act.

	Information relating to a public employee's age, educational background and 
previous experience and employment is generally deemed to constitute public 
information.  In Open Records Decision No. 165 (1977), this office said that similar 
information about a public school teacher was not excepted from disclosure.  Likewise, 
such information has been made available regarding licensees, Open Records Decision 
Nos. 215 (1978); 157 (1977), and applicants for public employment, Open Records 
Decision Nos. 277, 264 (1981).  You have raised section 3(a)(8) but you have not stated 
how release of this information would unduly interfere with law enforcement. See Open 
Records Decision No. 287 (1981).  We conclude that information as to this officer's age, 
law enforcement background, and previous experience and employment is public and 
should be disclosed.

	As to the reasons for the officer's resignation, we said in Open Records Decision 
No. 269 (1981) that such information is not ordinarily excepted from disclosure, absent 
facts which would give rise to a constitutional or common law right of privacy.  The 
reasons for the officer's resignation in the present instance are presumably contained in a 
letter he wrote to the chief of police on January 22, 1980.  We find nothing in this letter 
which would raise a claim under either constitutional or common law privacy, and as a 
result, it should be made available to the requestor.

	Information relating to complaints against police officers and disciplinary actions 
resulting therefrom was the subject of Open Records Decision No. 208 (1978).  In that 
opinion, this office said that:

the names of complainants who filed formal complaints with the 
police department's internal affairs division, the name of the officer 
who is the subject of the complaint, and the final disposition of the 
complaint by the city police department is public information and is 
required to be disclosed.  The information is not excepted under 
section 3(a)(1), 3(a)(2), 3(a)(3) or 3(a)(8).

In our opinion, this decision is dispositive of your inquiry regarding descriptions of 
disciplinary action, and accordingly, the requested information should be disclosed.

	Finally, the requestor seeks the names of persons interviewed in the course of a 
specific investigation into this officer's conduct.  The investigation in this case is 
apparently closed, as indicated by a letter from the United States Department of Justice, 
dated December 24, 1981.  In Open Records Decision No. 297 (1981), we said that 
information could be withheld from an inactive police investigatory file if “disclosure 
will unduly interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention.”  There we indicated 
that the names of witnesses could 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 . . . .  
If you make the requisite determination . . . you may withhold the 
names and statements of witnesses . . . under section 3(a)(8) of the 
Open Records Act.

The rationale of Open Records Decision No. 297 is, in our view, fully applicable to the 
names of persons interviewed in the specific investigation you mention.  Thus, you may 
withhold the names if you make the determination indicated therein.

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
Rick Gilpin
Patricia Hinojosa
Jim Moellinger
Bruce Youngblood