Open Records Decision No. 362
March 10, 1983

	Re:  Whether information in police files relating to execution of search warrant is 
excepted from public disclosure by section 3(a)(3) or 3(a)(11) of the Open Records Act

Mr. J. Rush Milam, III
McAllen City Attorney
P. O. Box 220
McAllen, Texas  78501

Dear Mr. Milam:

	You have requested our decision under the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, 
V.T.C.S., as to whether certain information in police department files is available to the 
public.  By letter of November 18, 1982, the McAllen Police Department received a 
request for information relating to a search warrant executed on December 11, 1980.  
The requestor seeks to obtain:

	1.	The name of each officer from your department who 
participated in any way in executing that search warrant;

	2.	The name of the officer who twisted the arm of [named 
individual];

	3.	The name of the confidential informant who provided the 
information upon which the search was based.

	You have furnished us with a list of officers who participated in the search, and 
contend that this information is excepted from public disclosure by section 3(a)(3) or 
3(a)(11).  The name of an arresting officer is information specifically declared to be 
public in Houston Chronicle Publishing Company v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 
(Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [14th Dist] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), 536 S.W.2d 559 (1976).  
This office has held that an arresting officer's name and his narrative version of a 
particular incident is disclosable.  Open Records Decision Nos. 354 (1982); 127 (1976).  
In our view, there is no significant distinction, for purposes of the Open Records Act, 
between an arresting officer and an officer executing a search warrant.  The information 
requested is factual, and thus not excepted by section 3(a)(11).  Furthermore, even if 
litigation may be reasonably anticipated in this case, such basic factual information has 
long been treated as routinely available.  See Open Records Decision No. 208 (1978).  
We assume that none of the officers are undercover officers or agents, and you have not 
advised us to the contrary.  See Open Records Decision Nos. 211 (1978) and 143 (1976).  
We conclude that the names of the officers who participated in executing the search 
warrant in this case are available to the public.

	As to the second item requested, you state that “the city of McAllen categorically 
denies that any officer or employee of the McAllen Police Department or of the city of 
McAllen, Texas, engaged in such activity.”  The Open Records Act does not require a 
governmental body to make available information which does not exist.  Because the 
city's position is that no person “twisted the arm” of the subject of the search warrant, it 
cannot supply the requested information.

	The name of informants may be withheld under section 3(a)(1) of the Act, as 
information made confidential by judicial decisions recognizing the informer's privilege, 
Open Records Decision Nos. 320 (1982); 285 (1981); 172 (1977), as well as under 
section 3(a)(8), the law enforcement exception, Open Records Decision Nos. 333 (1982); 
297 (1981); 127 (1976).

Very truly yours,

Jim Mattox
Attorney General of Texas

Tom Green
First Assistant Attorney General

David R. Richards
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

Approved:
Opinion Committee

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger
Bruce Youngblood