|
Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas John Cornyn |
|
March 28, 2002 Ms. J. Middlebrooks
OR2002-1536 Dear Middlebrooks: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 160579. The Dallas Police Department (the "department") received a request for information pertaining to "police activity that has occurred at 9730 Shepherd Drive in the last year[.] In addition, I would be interested in any police activity at said address involving the narcotics or vice divisions of the Dallas Police Department." You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.130 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.(1) Subsections 552.301(a) and (b) provide: (a) A governmental body that receives a written request for information that it wishes to withhold from public disclosure and that it considers to be within one of the [act's] exceptions . . . must ask for a decision from the attorney general about whether the information is within that exception if there has not been a previous determination about whether the information falls within one of the exceptions. (b) The governmental body must ask for the attorney general's decision and state the exceptions that apply within a reasonable time but not later than the 10th business day after the date of receiving the written request. It appears from the documents submitted to this office that the department received the request for information on January 7, 2002. You did not request a decision from this office until January 24, 2002. Consequently, you failed to request a decision within the ten business day period mandated by section 552.301(a) of the Government Code. Because the request for a decision was not timely received, the requested information is presumed to be public information. Gov't Code § 552.302. In order to overcome the presumption that the requested information is public information, a governmental body must provide compelling reasons why the information should not be disclosed. Id.; Hancock v. State Bd. of Ins., 797 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ); see Open Records Decision No. 630 (1994). A compelling reason to withhold the information from the public is demonstrated where information is made confidential by other law, or where third party interests are at issue. Open Record Decision No. 150 (1977). The applicability of section 552.101 is such a compelling reason.(2) You raise the informer's privilege for certain information that identifies individuals you say reported criminal violations to the department. The informer's privilege, incorporated into the Open Records Act by section 552.101, has long been recognized by Texas courts. See Aguilar v. State, 444 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Hawthorne v. State, 10 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928). It protects from disclosure the identities of persons who report activities over which the governmental body has criminal or quasi-criminal law-enforcement authority, provided that the subject of the information does not already know the informer's identity. Open Records Decision Nos. 515 at 3 (1988), 208 at 1-2 (1978). The informer's privilege protects the identities of individuals who report violations of statutes to the police or similar law-enforcement agencies, as well as those who report violations of statutes with civil or criminal penalties to "administrative officials having a duty of inspection or of law enforcement within their particular spheres." Open Records Decision No. 279 at 2 (1981) (citing Wigmore, Evidence, § 2374, at 767 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961)). The report must be of a violation of a criminal or civil statute. See Open Records Decision Nos. 582 at 2 (1990) , 515 at 4-5 (1988). In this instance, you have highlighted names in yellow and marked the information as excepted under the informer's privilege. After reviewing the information, we conclude that the department has established that the named individuals were reporting to the department potential violations of a statute with criminal penalties. Accordingly, you may withhold the informers' names which you have highlighted under section 552.101. Section 552.101 also encompasses the doctrines of common law and constitutional privacy. Common law privacy protects information if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). The type of information considered intimate and embarrassing by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation included information relating to sexual assault, pregnancy, mental or physical abuse in the workplace, illegitimate children, psychiatric treatment of mental disorders, attempted suicide, and injuries to sexual organs. 540 S.W.2d at 683. You have highlighted information which you have identified as excepted under the common law right to privacy. After reviewing the information, we conclude that it is of the type considered "intimate and embarrassing" by the court in Industrial Foundation. We also find that the information is "not of legitimate concern to the public." Therefore, you must withhold, pursuant to section 552.101, the information which you have highlighted and identified as excepted under the common law right to privacy. Section 552.130 provides in relevant part: (a) Information is excepted from the requirement of Section 552.021 if the information relates to: (1) a motor vehicle operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state; [or] (2) a motor vehicle title or registration issued by an agency of this state[.] Accordingly, you must withhold information such as the Texas license plate numbers, which you have highlighted, under section 552.130. Finally, we address your claim that originating telephone numbers are made confidential by section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code. Chapter 772 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes the development of local emergency communications districts. Sections 772.118, 772.218, and 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code apply only to an emergency 9-1-1 district established in accordance with chapter 772. See Open Records Decision No. 649 (1996). These statutes make confidential the originating telephone numbers and addresses of 9-1-1 callers that are furnished by a service supplier. Id. at 2. Section 772.118 applies to emergency communication districts for counties with a population over two million. Section 772.218 applies to emergency communication districts for counties with a population over 860,000. Section 772.318 applies to emergency communication districts for counties with a population over 20,000. Subchapter E, which applies to counties with populations over 1.5 million, does not contain a confidentiality provision regarding 9-1-1 telephone numbers and addresses. See Health & Safety Code §§ 772.401, et seq. Thus, if the emergency communication district here is subject to section 772.118, 772.218, or 772.318, the originating telephone numbers are protected from public disclosure under section 552.101 as information deemed confidential by statute. In summary, the information which the city has identified and highlighted in yellow must be withheld pursuant to section 552.101 in conjunction with common law privacy and the informer's privilege. If the city's emergency communication district is subject to section 772.118, 772.218, or 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code, the city must withhold the highlighted originating telephone numbers under section 552.101. The Texas license plate information, which the city has highlighted, must be withheld under section 552.130. The remainder of the requested information must be released to the requestor. This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances. This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a). If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e). If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ). Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the Texas Building and Procurement Commission at 512/475-2497. If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. We note that a third party may challenge this ruling by filing suit seeking to withhold information from a requestor. Gov't Code § 552.325. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling. Sincerely, Joyce K. Lowe
c: Ms. Kimberly Reeves
Footnotes 1. We assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office. 2. Section 552.101 excepts from required public disclosure information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |