 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
March 17, 2004 Ms. Lillian Guillen Graham
OR2004-2047 Dear Ms. Graham: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 197703. The City of Mesquite (the "city") received five requests from the same requestor for documents or records of policy and procedures concerning (1) the "use, operation, or maintenance of any audio or visual recording system in the [city jail]," (2) the "retention of audio or visual recordings capture[d] by any audio or visual recording system in the [city jail]," (3) the transfer of prisoners from the [city jail] to the Dallas County Jail," and (4) the inventory and safekeeping of the personal property of prisoners who are processed into the [city jail]." The requestor also requests access to (1) time sheets covering specified time periods for three named officers, and (2) the names and job titles of all individuals on duty at the city jail during a specified time period. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103 and 552.108 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides as follows: (a) Information is excepted from [required public disclosure] if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment, is or may be a party. . . . . (c) Information relating to litigation involving a governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the requestor applies to the officer for public information for access to or duplication of the information. Gov't Code § 552.103(a), (c). A governmental body has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show that the section 552.103(a) exception is applicable in a particular situation. The test for meeting this burden is a showing that (1) litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date the governmental body received the request for information, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. Univ. of Tex. Law Sch. v. Tex. Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). Although you state that the requestor's criminal charges are pending, his case is "being processed through the Dallas County District Attorney's office[,]" and a court date has been set in Dallas County Criminal Court No. 3, you have not demonstrated that the city is a party to this litigation or that the requested information is related to the pending litigation. See Gov't Code § 552.103(a); Open Records Decision No. 575 at 2 (1990). Under such circumstances, we require an affirmative representation from the prosecuting attorney representing the governmental body that is a party to the litigation that he or she wants the submitted information withheld from disclosure under section 552.103. In this instance the city has not provided this office with such a representation. We therefore conclude that none of the submitted information may be withheld pursuant to section 552.103. Section 552.108 of the Government Code provides, in 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: (1) release of the information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime. . . . . (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: (1) release of the internal record or notation would interfere with law enforcement or prosecution[.] Gov't Code § 552.108(a)(1), (b)(1). Generally, a governmental body claiming section 552.108 must reasonably explain how and why the release of the requested information would interfere with law enforcement. See Gov't Code §§ 552.108(a)(1), (b)(1),.301(e)(1)(A); see also Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1977). Although you reference the requestor's pending prosecution, you do not state how the submitted information relates to the requestor's case, nor do you explain how release of this information would interfere with the requestor's pending prosecution. Thus, we conclude that you have not shown how release of any of the information at issue would interfere with law enforcement or prosecution for purposes of section 552.108(a)(1). Section 552.108(b)(1) is intended to protect "information which, if released, would permit private citizens to anticipate weaknesses in a police department, avoid detection, jeopardize officer safety, and generally undermine police efforts to effectuate the laws of this State." City of Ft. Worth v. Cornyn, 86 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.). This office has stated that under the statutory predecessor to section 552.108(b), a governmental body may withhold information that would reveal law enforcement techniques. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 531 (1989) (release of detailed use of force guidelines would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 456 (1987) (release of forms containing information regarding location of off-duty police officers in advance would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 413 (1984) (release of sketch showing security measures to be used at next execution would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 409 (1984) (if information regarding certain burglaries exhibits pattern that reveals investigative techniques, information is excepted under section 552.108), 341 (1982) (release of certain information from Department of Public Safety would unduly interfere with law enforcement because release would hamper departmental efforts to detect forgeries of drivers' licenses), 252 (1980) (section 552.108 is 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). However, in order for a governmental body to claim this exception to disclosure, it must meet its burden of explaining how and why release of the requested information would interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention. See Open Records Decision No. 562 at 10 (1990). Furthermore, generally known policies and techniques may not be withheld under section 552.108. 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 are not protected under section 552.108), 252 at 3 (1980) (governmental body did not meet burden because it did not indicate why investigative procedures and techniques requested were different from those commonly known). Whether disclosure of particular records will interfere with law enforcement or prosecution must be decided on a case-by-case basis. See Attorney General Opinion MW-381 (1981). Upon our review of the submitted information, we conclude that release of a small portion of the information would interfere with law enforcement. Therefore, we conclude that you may withhold the information that we have marked under section 552.108(b)(1). However, we conclude that you have not explained how release of the remaining information would interfere with law enforcement or prosecution. Therefore, the remaining information may not be withheld under section 552.108(b)(1). In conclusion, you may withhold the information we have marked under section 552.108(b)(1) of the Government Code. You must release the remaining information to the requestor. 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, Jennifer E. Berry
c: Mr. Fred Slice
|