 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
April 28, 2004 Mr. Steven Todd
OR2004-3477 Dear Mr. Todd: You have asked whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 203402. The 33rd Judicial District Attorney's Office (the "D.A.") received a request for "records that have been turned over to the defense attorney representing Robert "Triple" Corrigan in the boating accident case of Laura Putnam." The department has released the basic information but claims the remaining requested information is excepted from public disclosure under section 552.108 of the Government Code. Section 552.108(a) excepts from disclosure "[i]nformation held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime . . . if: (1) release of the information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime." 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). You state that the information relates to a pending criminal case. Based upon this representation, we conclude that release of the 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) (court delineates law enforcement interests that are present in active cases). Thus, the D.A. may withhold the information under section 552.108(a)(1). The requestor asserts that the D.A. may not withhold the information under section 552.108 because the D.A. provided the information to the defense attorney. This office has ruled that exchange of information among litigants in informal discovery is not considered a voluntary release of information. See Open Records Decision No. 579 (1990). Likewise, when a governmental body discloses information because it reasonably concludes it has a constitutional obligation to do so, it can still invoke the law enforcement exception. See Open Records Decision No. 454 (1986); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution is required to provide defense with all potentially exculpatory evidence). The D.A. explains that the D.A. released the information to the defense attorney "pursuant to Court Order in the context of the pending criminal case and as required by due process constitutional provisions in general in criminal prosecutions." Thus, the D.A.'s release to the defense attorney was not a release to the public, and therefore the D.A. has not waived section 552.108. 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 limits. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the Texas Building and Procurement 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, Yen-Ha Le
c: Mr. John Tedesco
|