Open Records Decision No. 364
March 11, 1983

	Re:  Whether video tape of booking of prisoner into city jail is excepted from 
public disclosure by section 3(a)(8) of the Open Records Act

Mr. Paul K. Williams
Assistant City Attorney
P. O. Box 1152
Midland, Texas  79702

Dear Mr. Williams:

	On behalf of the city of Midland, you have requested our decision under the Open 
Records Act, article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S., as to whether a video tape showing the booking 
of a person into a city jail is public information subject to disclosure.  You state that “[i]t 
is a policy of the city of Midland Police Department that whenever anyone is booked that 
procedure is video taped.”

	The term “public records” is defined by the Open Records Act as:

the portion of all documents, writings, letters, memoranda, or other 
written, printed, typed, copied, or developed materials which 
contains public information.

V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a, §2(2).  This office has recently stated that the form in which 
information is stored does not determine its availability.  Open Records Decision No. 352 
(1982).  This office has held that the Open Records Act applies to computer tapes, Open 
Records Decision No. 352; magnetic tapes, Open Records Decision No. 182 (1977); and 
tape recordings, Open Records Decision No. 32 (1974).  Clearly, a video tape constitutes 
“developed materials” within the ambit of those “public records” to which the Open 
Records Act is applicable.

	You contend that the video tape in question here is excepted from disclosure 
under section 3(a)(8) of the act, as:

records of law enforcement agencies that deal with the detection and 
investigation of crime and the internal records and notations of such 
law enforcement agencies which are maintained for internal use in 
matters relating to law enforcement.

	Since the court's decision 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. 
per curium, 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976), certain law enforcement information has been 
recognized as disclosable, absent special circumstances.  See, e.g., Open Records 
Decision Nos. 339 (1982); 127 (1976).  A video tape of a particular booking will contain 
much of the information considered disclosable since the Houston Chronicle decision.  
On the other hand, such a video tape will also include information, specifically held in 
that case to be excepted from disclosure.  The court said, for example, that mugshots, 
palm prints, and fingerprints of the arrestee need not be disclosed.  In addition, 
evidentiary material is generally excepted.  Not only would editing of excludable 
material from a video tape pose serious practical difficulties, in may instances the 
confidential information would be inextricably interwined with the disclosable 
information.  Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the information otherwise 
disclosable is not readily available to a requestor in written form.

	Because this video tape contains material excepted from disclosure by section 
3(a)(8); because of the practical difficulties in editing this tape to furnish non-excepted 
information; and because the information required to be disclosed remains available in 
written form, it is our decision that this video tape is excepted from disclosure in its 
entirety by section 3(a)(8).

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