 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
March 20, 2003 Ms. Tamara Pitts
OR2003-1908 Dear Ms. Pitts: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 178212. The Fort Worth Police Department (the "department") received a request for information relating to its policy on bulletproof vests and drug raids. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and have reviewed the information you submitted. Section 552.108(b)(1) of the Government Code excepts from public disclosure an internal record of a law enforcement agency that is maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement or prosecution if "release of the internal record or notation would interfere with law enforcement or prosecution." See City of Fort Worth v. Cornyn, 86 S.W.3d 320, 327 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet. h.) (Gov't Code § 552.108(b)(1) protects information which, if released, would permit private citizens to anticipate weaknesses in police department, avoid detection, jeopardize officer safety, and generally undermine police efforts to effectuate state laws). The statutory predecessor to section 552.108(b) protected information that would reveal law enforcement techniques. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 531 (1989) (release of detailed use of force guidelines would interfere with law enforcement), 456 (1987) (release in advance of information regarding location of off-duty police officers would interfere with law enforcement), 413 (1984) (release of sketch showing security measures to be used at next execution would interfere with law enforcement), 409 (1984) (information regarding certain burglaries protected if it exhibits pattern that reveals investigative techniques), 341 (1982) (release of certain information from Department of Public Safety would interfere with law enforcement because disclosure would hamper departmental efforts to detect forgeries of drivers' licenses), 252 (1980) (statutory predecessor was designed to protect investigative techniques and procedures used in law enforcement), 143 (1976) (disclosure of specific operations or specialized equipment directly related to investigation or detection of crime may be excepted). The statutory predecessor to section 552.108(b)(1) was not applicable, however, to generally known policies and procedures. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 531 at 2-3 (1989) (Penal Code provisions, common law rules, and constitutional limitations on use of force not protected), 252 at 3 (1980) (governmental body failed to indicate why investigative procedures and techniques requested were any different from those commonly known). A governmental body that relies on section 552.108(b)(1) must sufficiently explain, if the requested information does not supply an explanation on its face, how and why the release of the information would interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention. See Gov't Code § 552.301(e)(1)(A); see also Open Records Decision Nos. 562 at 10 (1990), 531 at 2 (1989). You assert that the submitted information reveals the department's methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and detecting crime and, if released, would interfere with law enforcement. Based on your arguments and our review of the information at issue, we conclude that section 552.108(b)(1) is applicable to some of the submitted information. We have marked the information that you may withhold. Otherwise, we conclude that you have not demonstrated that the release of any of the remaining information would interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention. Therefore, you may not withhold any of the remaining information under section 552.108(b)(1). As you claim no other exception to the disclosure of that information, it 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 Dep't of Pub. 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. Stephen Wright
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |