 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
April 3, 2003 Mr. Brad Norton
OR2003-2253 Dear Mr. Norton: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 178800. The Austin Police Department (the "department") received a written request for information pertaining to two particular 911 telephone calls. You state that the department has released the requested information pertaining to one of those calls. With regard to the other 911 call, the requestor seeks the telephone number from which the call was made, the name of the individual who placed the call, and a tape recording of the call. You contend that this information is excepted from public disclosure pursuant to sections 552.101 and 552.108 of the Government Code. You contend that the tape recording of the 911 call is excepted from public disclosure pursuant to section 552.108(a)(1) of the Government Code, which excepts from required public disclosure "[i]nformation held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime . . . if . . . release of the information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime." Section 552.108(a)(1) protects information pertaining to a pending criminal investigation or prosecution because it is presumed that the release of such information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime. See Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976). Because you state that the tape recording "contains information relating to a pending investigation," we conclude that the department may withhold the tape recording pursuant to section 552.108(a)(1) of the Government Code. You have also submitted to this office as responsive to the request a computer aided dispatch ("CAD") report, which contains the requested telephone number and the identity of the individual who placed the call. Generally, information contained in CAD reports consists solely of information held to be public in Houston Chronicle and therefore must be released to the public. See Open Records Decision No. 649 at 3 (1996). However, you contend that the originating telephone number of the 911 call is made confidential under section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 772.318 applies to emergency communication districts for counties with a population over 20,000 and makes confidential the originating telephone number and address of a 911 telephone call. Thus, assuming the telephone number at issue was provided to the department by a service supplier to an emergency communication district subject to section 772.318, the telephone number is protected from public disclosure under section 552.101 as information deemed confidential by statute. However, if the telephone number was not provided by a service supplier but by some other source, the telephone number is not confidential and must be released. You contend that the name of the individual who placed the 911 call is excepted from public disclosure pursuant to the informer's privilege in conjunction with section 552.101. See Open Records Decision No. 649 at n.4 (identity of informant in certain occasions may be withheld from CAD report). Section 552.101 of the Government Code also protects information coming within the informer's privilege. See generally Open Records Decision No. 515 (1988). In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957), the United States Supreme Court explained the rationale that underlies the informer's privilege: What is usually referred to as the informer's privilege is in reality the Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law. [Citations omitted.] The purpose of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation. [Emphasis added.] The CAD report reveals that the individual who placed the 911 call is a police officer. As noted above, the purpose of the informer's privilege is to protect the identities of citizens in order to encourage the reporting of violations of the law. Based on the rationale established in Roviaro, we conclude that the informer's privilege was not intended to protect the identities of law-enforcement officials whose official duties include the reporting of crime. Consequently, the informer's privilege is inapplicable to the name of the police office identified in the CAD report; accordingly, the department must release the caller's name to the requestor. Because the requestor has not requested any other information contained in the CAD report, we need not address the extent to which the remaining portions of the CAD report must be released at this time. In summary, the department may withhold the submitted tape recording of a 911 call pursuant to section 552.108(a)(1). The department must withhold the originating telephone number in accordance with section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code. However, the name of the police officer who placed the 911 call 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, V.G. Schimmel
c: Mr. Birl Frazier
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |