 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
March 11, 2004 Mr. Doug Arnold
OR2004-1849 Dear Mr. Arnold: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 197429. The Williamson County District Attorney's Office (the "district attorney") received a request for "copies of all information that is in [the district attorney's] actual or constructive possession and relates to all law enforcement records" pertaining to a specified criminal case. You claim that some of the requested information is not subject to the Public Information Act (the "Act"). You claim that the remaining requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.103, 552.108, 552.111, 552.119, and 552.130 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information.(1) You state that some of the submitted documents are held by the district attorney as an agent of the grand jury, "having been obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena." Article 20.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. This office has concluded that grand juries are not governmental bodies that are subject to chapter 552 of the Government Code, so that records that are within the actual or constructive possession of a grand jury are not subject to disclosure under chapter 552. See Open Records Decision No. 513 (1988). When an individual or entity acts at the direction of the grand jury as its agent, information prepared or collected by the agent is within the grand jury's constructive possession and is not subject to chapter 552. Id. at 3. Information that is not so held or maintained is subject to chapter 552 and may be withheld only if a specific exception to disclosure is applicable. Id. Because some of the information at issue is in the custody of the district attorney as agent of the grand jury, it is not subject to disclosure under chapter 552. Id. at 4. Next, we note that the submitted information includes a search warrant affidavit. An affidavit to support a search warrant is made public by statute if the search warrant has been executed. See Code Crim. Proc art. 18.01(b); see also Open Records Decision No. 525 (1989). Thus, if the corresponding search warrant has been executed, the district attorney must release the submitted search warrant affidavit, which we have marked, to the requestor. We note that the submitted information includes an arrest warrant. The 78th Legislature recently amended article 15.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add language providing: The arrest warrant, and any affidavit presented to the magistrate in support of the issuance of the warrant, is public information, and beginning immediately when the warrant is executed the magistrate's clerk shall make a copy of the warrant and the affidavit available for public inspection in the clerk's office during normal business hours. A person may request the clerk to provide copies of the warrant and affidavit on payment of the cost of providing the copies. Crim. Proc. Code art. 15.26 (emphasis added). Thus, arrest warrants are made public by statute and must be released under article 15.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a general rule, the exceptions to disclosure found in the Act do not apply to information that is made public by other statutes. See Open Records Decision Nos. 623 at 3 (1994), 525 at 3 (1989). Thus, the district attorney must release the arrest warrant that we have marked under article 15.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We also note that the submitted information also includes a complaint. Article 15.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "[t]he affidavit made before the magistrate or district or county attorney is called a 'complaint' if it charges the commission of an offense." Crim. Proc. Code art. 15.04. Case law indicates that a complaint can support the issuance of an arrest warrant. See Janecka v. State, 739 S.W.2d 813, 822-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Villegas v. State, 791 S.W.2d 226, 235 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi1990, pet. ref'd); Borsari v. State, 919 S.W.2d 913, 918 (Tex. App.- Houston [14 Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd) (discussing well-established principle that complaint in support of arrest warrant need not contain same particularity required of indictment). Although the complaint that we have marked appears to have been made before a magistrate, we are unable to determine whether it was presented to the magistrate in support of the issuance of an arrest warrant. As we are unable to make this determination, we must rule in the alternative. If the marked complaint was in fact "presented to the magistrate in support of the issuance of an arrest warrant," then it is made public by article 15.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and must be released to the requestor. If the marked complaint was not so presented, then it is not made public by article 15.26 and must be disposed of along with the rest of the submitted information. The submitted information also contains an accident report form that appears to have been completed pursuant to chapter 550 of the Transportation Code. See Transp. Code § 550.064 (officer's accident report). Section 550.065(b) of the Transportation Code states that, except as provided by subsection (c), accident reports are privileged and confidential. Section 550.065(c)(4) provides for release of accident reports to a person who provides two of the following three pieces of information: (1) date of the accident; (2) name of any person involved in the accident; and (3) specific location of the accident. Transp. Code § 550.065(c)(4)). Under this provision, a governmental entity is required to release a copy of an accident report to a person who provides the law enforcement agency with two or more pieces of information specified by the statute. Id. In this instance, the requestor has not supplied two of the three pieces of information required by the statute. Thus, you must withhold the accident report, which we have marked, under section 550.065(b) of the Transportation Code in conjunction with section 552.101 of the Government Code. The remaining submitted information consists of a completed investigation made of, for, or by the district attorney. Section 552.022(a)(1) of the Government Code provides that this information is not excepted from required disclosure under the Act, except as provided by section 552.108, or unless the information is expressly confidential under other law. Although you claim that this information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103 and 552.111 of the Government Code, we note that these exceptions to disclosure are discretionary exceptions to disclosure under the Act that do not constitute "other law" for purposes of section 552.022.(2) Accordingly, we conclude that the district attorney may not withhold any portion of this particular information under section 552.103 or 552.111 of the Government Code. We note that the attorney work product privilege is also found in rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Texas Supreme Court has held that "[t]he Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Evidence are 'other law' within the meaning of section 552.022." In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001). However, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure only apply to "actions of a civil nature." See Tex. R. Civ. P. 2. Accordingly, we find that the attorney work product privilege found in rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to any portion of this particular information. However, because information subject to section 552.022(a)(1) may be withheld as provided by section 552.108, we will address your section 552.108 assertion for the remaining submitted information. Section 552.108 of the Government Code states in pertinent part: (a) Information held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime [is excepted from required public disclosure] if: . . . . (4) it is information that: (A) is prepared by an attorney representing the state in anticipation of or in the course of preparing for criminal litigation; or (B) reflects the mental impressions or legal reasoning of an attorney representing the state [and] (b) An internal record or notation of a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that is maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement or prosecution [is excepted from required public disclosure] if: . . . . (3) the internal record or notation: (A) is prepared by an attorney representing the state in anticipation of or in the course of preparing for criminal litigation; or (B) reflects the mental impressions or legal reasoning of an attorney representing the state. (c) This section does not except from [required public disclosure] information that is basic information about an arrested person, an arrest, or a crime. Gov't Code § 552.108(a)(4), (b)(3). When a request essentially seeks the entire prosecution file, the information is excepted from disclosure in its entirety pursuant to section 552.108 and the holding in Curry v. Walker, 873 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. 1994) (discovery request for district attorney's entire litigation file may be denied because decision of what to include in the file necessarily reveals prosecutor's mental impressions or legal reasoning). In this instance, we agree that the request encompasses the district attorney's entire case file. Curry thus provides that the release of the information would reveal the district attorney's mental impressions or legal reasoning. Accordingly, the district attorney may withhold most of the remaining submitted information pursuant to subsections 552.108(a)(4)(B) and (b)(3)(B) of the Government Code. We note, however, that section 552.108 does not except from disclosure 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 Publishing Company 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). In Open Records Decision No. 127 (1976), this office summarized the types of information made public pursuant to Houston Chronicle. See Open Records Decision No. 127 at 4 (1976). This information must be released, whether or not the information is found on the front page of an offense report. In summary, some of the information at issue is in the custody of the district attorney as agent of the grand jury and therefore is not subject to disclosure under the Act. We also conclude that if the corresponding search warrant has been executed, the district attorney must release the submitted search warrant affidavit, which we have marked, pursuant to article 18.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The district attorney must also release the arrest warrant that we have marked under article 15.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the complaint we have marked was "presented to the magistrate in support of the issuance of an arrest warrant," then it is made public by article 15.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and must be released to the requestor. The district attorney must withhold the accident report, which we have marked, under section 550.065(b) of the Transportation Code in conjunction with section 552.101 of the Government Code. Except for basic information, which must be released, the district attorney may withhold the remaining submitted information pursuant to section 552.108 of the Government Code. Because our ruling 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, Sarah I. Swanson
c: Mr. Neal Davis
Footnotes 1. We assume that the 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. Discretionary exceptions are intended to protect only the interests of the governmental body, as distinct from exceptions which are intended to protect information deemed confidential by law or which implicates the interests of third parties. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 630 at 4 (1994) (governmental body may waive attorney-client privilege, section 552.107(1)), 551 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.103 serves only to protect governmental body's position in litigation and does not itself make information confidential), 522 at 4 (1989) (discretionary exceptions in general), 473 (1987) (governmental body may waive statutory predecessor to section 552.111); see also 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). Discretionary exceptions, therefore, do not constitute "other law" that makes information confidential. |