 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
June 8, 2004 Ms. Maleshia Brown Farmer
OR2004-4640 Dear Ms. Farmer: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 203108. The City of Fort Worth (the "city") received requests for recorded copies of a 911 call regarding an alleged kidnaping on March 24, 2004, as well as a copy of the radio master call log for the same incident. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.108 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Section 552.108(a)(1) excepts from 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." 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 submitted information relates to an open criminal investigation by the Fort Worth Police Department. Based upon this representation and our review of the information, we conclude that the release of the 911 tape and master call log 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). However, section 552.108 is inapplicable to basic information about an arrested person, an arrest, or a crime. Gov't Code § 552.108(c). Basic information refers to the information held to be public in Houston Chronicle Publishing 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). You claim in this instance that the complainants' names, phone number and "associated" address contained in the master call log should not be released pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code, in conjunction with section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This section encompasses information made confidential by statute including section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code. Chapter 772 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes the development of local emergency communications districts. Section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code applies to an emergency 911 district established in accordance with chapter 772. See Open Records Decision No. 649 (1996). This statute makes confidential the originating telephone number and address of 911 callers that are furnished by a service supplier. Id. at 2. Section 772.318 applies to an emergency communication district for a county with a population of more than 20,000. In this instance, you state that the emergency communication district here is subject to section 772.318. We note that the originating telephone numbers of 911 callers are not considered basic information, and may therefore be withheld under section 552.108. Furthermore, you do not identify the information you consider an "associated" address. By its terms, section 772.318 only applies to the originating address of the 911 call. In this instance, if the originating address of the 911 call is the location of the crime, thus constituting basic information, the city must nonetheless withhold this information under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 772.318. Alternatively, if the originating address of the 911 call is not the location of the crime, and therefore not basic information, it may be withheld under section 552.108. See Open Records Decision No. 127 (1976) (summarizing types of information deemed public by Houston Chronicle). Lastly, you argue that the complainants' identities should be withheld under section 772.318; however, section 772.318 does not protect the names of 911 callers. Therefore, these names cannot be withheld, and must be released to the requestors. In summary, if the originating address of the 911 call is the location of the crime, thus constituting basic information, the city must nonetheless withhold this information under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 772.318 of the Health and Safety Code. The city must, however, release the remaining basic information. If the originating address of the 911 call does not constitute basic information, the city must release all of the basic information. The tape and the remaining portions of the master call log may be withheld under section 552.108 of the Government Code. 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, Marc A. Barenblat
Enc. Submitted documents c: Ms. Barbara Griffith
Mr. Derik Lattig
Ms. Sophie Kim
Mr. Patrick Randolph
Ms. Tracy Sabo
Mr. Rafael McDonnell
|