|
Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas John Cornyn |
|
July 16, 2002 Ms. Traci S. Berven
OR2002-3883 Dear Ms. Berven: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 165744. The City of Killeen (the "city") received a request for information relating to a specified address. You state that the city has released most of the requested information. The city claims that the remaining information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you raise and have reviewed the information you submitted. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This exception encompasses information that another statute makes confidential. The city raises section 552.101 in conjunction with section 143.089 of the Local Government Code. Section 143.089 is applicable only to information that is contained in a personnel file of a fire fighter or police officer of a civil service municipality. See Local Gov't Code § 143.089(a), (g); City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney General, 851 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, writ denied); Attorney General Opinion JC-0257 at 6-7 (2000); Open Records Decision No. 562 (1990). We understand that the city is a civil service municipality under chapter 143 of the Local Government Code. The city has not demonstrated, however, that the submitted information relates in any respect to the personnel file of a city fire fighter or police officer. Therefore, section 143.089 of the Local Government Code is not applicable to this information. The city also raises section 552.101 in conjunction with the common-law informer's privilege. Texas courts have long recognized the informer's privilege. See Aguilar v. State, 444 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The informer's privilege protects 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. See Open Records Decision Nos. 515 at 3 (1998), 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 laws with civil or criminal penalties to "administrative officials having a duty of inspection or of law enforcement within their particular spheres." See 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 or ordinance. See Open Records Decision Nos. 582 at 2 (1990), 515 at 4-5 (1988). The privilege excepts the informer's statement only to the extent necessary to protect that informer's identity. See Open Records Decision No. 549 at 5 (1990). The city asserts that the submitted information relates to a complaint of a potential violation of a city ordinance. However, the city has not identified the specific ordinance, if any, that allegedly was violated. Likewise, the city has not informed us that the alleged conduct is punishable by any civil or criminal penalty. Thus, the city has not shown that the submitted information is protected from disclosure by the common-law informer's privilege under section 552.101 of the Government Code. In summary, section 143.089 of the Local Government Code is not applicable to the submitted information, and the information is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with the common-law informer's privilege. Therefore, the submitted information must be released. 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, James W. Morris, III
c: Mr. Jimmy O. Ridgle
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |