 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
April 9, 2003 Mr. Kuruvilla Oommen
OR2003-2467 Dear Mr. Oommen: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 178639. The City of Houston (the "city") received a request for lab case files for all adjudicated cases involving DNA and/or serology work during a specified time frame. You claim that the responsive information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103, 552.108, and 552.130 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that the responsive information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022 provides that the following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless they are expressly confidential under other law: (1) a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body, except as provided by Section 552.108[.] Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(1). The city must release the responsive information under section 552.022(a)(1), unless the information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 or expressly confidential under other law. Section 552.103 is a discretionary exception to disclosure that protects the governmental body's interests and may be waived. As such, this exception is not other law that makes information confidential for the purposes of section 552.022. Therefore, the responsive information may not be withheld under section 552.103. See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469, 475-76 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive section 552.103); Open Records Decision No. 542 at 4 (1990) (litigation exception does not implicate third-party rights and may be waived). As you do claim sections 552.108 and 552.130 with regard to the responsive information, we will address your arguments under those exceptions. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.108 of the Government Code. Section 552.108(a) provides in pertinent part that information held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime is excepted from disclosure if "release of the information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime[.]" Gov't Code § 552.108(a)(1). Generally, a governmental body claiming section 552.108 as an exception to disclosure of requested information must demonstrate how and why the release of the requested information would interfere with law enforcement or prosecution. See Gov't Code §§ 552.108(a), (b), .301(e)(1)(a); see also Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1977). The city acknowledges that the requestor only seeks information from adjudicated cases, meaning cases that have resulted in conviction or deferred adjudication. However, you state, and provide an affidavit from the Assistant District Attorney for Harris County stating, that the city intends to initiate a review of past cases involving DNA testing. You also state that release of the requested information would interfere with the criminal investigations and prosecutions of these cases. Having considered your arguments and reviewed the information at issue, we find that you have demonstrated that the release of the requested information would interfere with criminal investigations and prosecutions of criminal cases. See Gov't Code § 552.108(a)(1); 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) (court delineates law enforcement interests that are present in active cases); Open Records Decision No. 216 at 3 (1978). Therefore, the city may withhold the responsive information under section 552.108. However, section 552.108 is inapplicable to basic information about an arrested person, an arrest, or a crime. Gov't Code § 552.108(c). We believe such basic information refers to the information held to be public in 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), and includes the identification and description of the complainant. Open Records Decision No. 127 (1976). However, because the submitted information contains information about an alleged sexual assault, certain front page offense report information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. In sexual assault cases, section 552.101 excepts from public disclosure certain information that is not normally excepted under section 552.108. Section 552.101 excepts from public disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Under section 552.101, information may be withheld on the basis of common-law privacy. The doctrine of common-law privacy protects information if it is highly intimate or embarrassing such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person and the public has no legitimate interest in it. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). In Open Records Decision No. 339 (1982), we concluded that a sexual assault victim has a common-law privacy interest which prevents disclosure of information that would identify the victim. See also Morales v. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, writ denied) (identity of witnesses to and victims of sexual harassment was highly intimate or embarrassing information and public did not have a legitimate interest in such information). Accordingly, the city must withhold the information that identifies the sexual assault victim pursuant to common-law privacy. See Open Records Decision Nos. 393 (1983), 339 (1982). We have marked the type of information that must be withheld. The city must release all other front page offense report information whether or not the information is found on the front page of an offense report. In summary, the city may withhold the requested information under section 552.108. However, with the exception of the identity of the sexual assault victim which is private under section 552.101, basic front page information must be released from the requested information. As our ruling on ths issue is dispositive, we need not address your remaining arguments. 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, Heather Pendleton Ross
c: Mr. David Raziq
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |