Open Records Decision No. 422 July 26, 1984 Re: Whether details of a shooting incident are excepted from disclosure under the Open Records Act Mr. H. Lee Veness, Jr. Assistant City Attorney City of Garland P.O. Box 401889 Garland, Texas 75040 Dear Mr. Veness: On behalf of an insurance company, a claims adjuster is conducting an investigation into a shooting incident. The company wishes to know the details of this incident; specifically, whether the shooting was self-inflicted, and if it was, whether it represented an attempted suicide or was accidental. The claims adjuster has asked you to furnish any information whatsoever in regard to this shooting, and you have asked whether the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S., requires you to comply with this request. You contend that the information is excepted from disclosure under section 3(a)(1) of the act, as "information deemed confidential by law," specifically, under a common law right of privacy. The doctrine of common law privacy excepts from disclosure information which contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts, the disclosure of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, provided that such information is of no legitimate concern to the public. Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668, 682 (Tex. 1976). We have recognized that information contained in medical reports might raise a claim of common law privacy if it relates, for example, to a drug overdose, acute alcohol intoxication, obstetrical/ gynecological illness, convulsions/seizures or emotional/mental distress. Open Records Decision No. 370 (1983). See also, Open Records Decision Nos. 343 (1982); 262 (1980). In our opinion, information which reveals that an individual was the victim of a self-inflicted wound does not in itself satisfy the standard of common law privacy. Many self-inflicted wounds are accidental, and we do not believe it is reasonable to conclude that revealing the occurrence of an accidental self-inflicted wound reveals "highly intimate" information. On the other hand, you should not reveal any details of a self- inflicted wound beyond the fact that it is self-inflicted. A self-inflicted wound is, necessarily, either accidental or intentional. If intentional, release of that fact might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the victim was suffering from "emotional/mental distress." We cannot require release of reports of accidental self-inflicted injuries without, by implication, revealing that reports of all other self-inflicted injuries demonstrate intent. It is necessary to conclude, therefore, that while the mere fact of a self-inflicted injury is not sufficient to meet the first criterion of the common law privacy test, any details beyond that fact do satisfy that criterion, in that they would reveal highly intimate or embarrassing facts, the disclosure of which would be highly objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities. To be excepted by common law privacy, however, information must also be of no legitimate concern to the public. Most previous decisions in this area have related to medical information. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 370 (1983); 343 (1982); 262 (1980). We believe it is clear that the public has a substantially greater interest in knowing the identities of victims of crime than in knowing the identities of persons treated at a public hospital. Cf. Open Records Decision No. 339 (1982) (identity of rape victim may be withheld under common law privacy). Attempted suicide is not, however, a crime in Texas, even though it may be initially investigated by the police. In our opinion, that circumstance makes it more akin to the category of "emotional/mental distress" than to that of homicide. As a result, there is in our view a presumption that the details of any instance of a self-inflicted wound, beyond the mere fact that it is self- inflicted, are excepted from disclosure by common law privacy. That presumption may be overcome by a demonstration that the public has a substantial interest in a particular incident. As to your section 3(a)(8) claim, no information may be withheld thereunder which is not already excepted under section 3(a)(1). 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 Rick Gilpin, Chairman Jon Bible Colin Carl Susan Garrison Jim Moellinger Nancy Sutton