December 29, 2004

Mr. Doug Arnold
Assistant District Attorney
Williamson County
405 M.L.K., No. 1
Georgetown Texas 78626

OR2004-10919

Dear Mr. Arnold:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (the "Act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 215719.

The Williamson County District Attorney's Office (the "district attorney") received a request for information related to a specific case. You state that you have released some of the requested information but claim that the remaining information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.103, 552.108, 552.111, and 552.130 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. We have also considered comments submitted by the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (allowing interested party to submit comments indicating why requested information should or should not be released).

We first note that the information at issue is subject to required public disclosure under section 552.022 of the Government Code, which provides in relevant part:

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 information at issue consists of a completed investigation made by or for the district attorney. Therefore, as prescribed by section 552.022, the district attorney must release the information unless it is excepted under section 552.108 or confidential under other law. Sections 552.103 and 552.111 of the Government Code are discretionary exceptions to public disclosure that protect the governmental body's interests and may be waived. 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 Nos. 676 at 10-11 (2002) (attorney-client privilege under section 552.107(1) may be waived), 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) (discretionary exceptions generally). As such, sections 552.103 and 552.111 do not qualify as other law that makes information confidential for the purposes of section 552.022. Thus, the district attorney may not withhold any of the information at issue under section 552.103 of the Government Code or under section 552.111 of the Government Code. However, we will address your claim under section 552.108.

Section 552.108 of the Government Code provides 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) represents the mental impressions or legal reasoning of an attorney representing the state.

Gov't Code § 552.108(a)(4). A governmental body that claims an exception to public disclosure under section 552.108 must reasonably explain how and why section 552.108 is applicable to the information. See Gov't Code § 552.301(e)(1)(A); Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1977); Open Records Decision No. 434 at 2-3 (1986). You contend that the requestor seeks access to the district attorney's entire criminal case file in Cause No. 03-177-K277. In Curry v. Walker, the Texas Supreme Court held that a district attorney's decision as to what to include in a case file necessarily reveals the attorney's thought processes concerning the prosecution of the case. See Curry v. Walker, 873 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. 1994). Accordingly, the court found that the district attorney's entire case file was protected by the attorney work product privilege. Id. at 380-81.

Here, we note your statement that you will release some information from the case file to the requestor. Thus, as you do not seek to withhold the entire case file, we find that Curry is not applicable in this instance. See Open Records Decision No. 647 (1996) (specific document is not automatically protected by work product privilege because it is part of attorney's litigation file). However, you state that the submitted documents include information that was prepared by the district attorney in the course of preparing for criminal litigation, and that reveals the district attorney's mental impressions and legal reasoning. Based on your representations in that regard and our review of the submitted information, we determine that section 552.108(a)(4) is applicable to portions of the information. Accordingly, we have marked the information that may be withheld pursuant to section 552.108(a)(4) of the Government Code.

Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision," and encompasses information made confidential by other statutes. Federal regulations prohibit the release of criminal history record information ("CHRI") maintained in state and local CHRI systems to the general public. See 28 C.F.R. § 20.21(c)(1) ("Use of criminal history record information disseminated to noncriminal justice agencies shall be limited to the purpose for which it was given."), (2) ("No agency or individual shall confirm the existence or nonexistence of criminal history record information to any person or agency that would not be eligible to receive the information itself."). Section 411.083 provides that any CHRI maintained by the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") is confidential. Gov't Code § 411.083(a). Similarly, CHRI obtained from the DPS pursuant to statute is also confidential and may only be disclosed in very limited instances. Id. § 411.084; see also id. § 411.087 (restrictions on disclosure of CHRI obtained from DPS also apply to CHRI obtained from other criminal justice agencies). However, the definition of CHRI does not include driving record information maintained by DPS under chapter 521 of the Transportation Code. See Gov't Code § 411.082(2)(B). With respect to the remaining submitted information, we find the district attorney must withhold any CHRI falling within the ambit of these state and federal regulations pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code.

You also contend that other submitted information must be withheld under section 552.130 of the Government Code. This section excepts from disclosure information that "relates to . . . a motor vehicle operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state [or] a motor vehicle title or registration issued by an agency of this state." We note, however, that section 552.130 excepts information from disclosure in order to protect individuals' privacy. Therefore, the requestor is entitled to his client's driver's license number and information pertaining to motor vehicles in which his client owns an interest, and such information may not be withheld under section 552.130. See Gov't Code § 552.023(b) (governmental body may not deny access to information to person to whom information relates on grounds that information is considered confidential by privacy principles).

In summary, we have marked information that the district attorney may withhold pursuant to section 552.108(a)(4) of the Government Code. Any criminal history record information in the submitted investigation must be withheld pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with chapter 411 of the Government Code and federal regulations. The remainder of the submitted information must be released to this requestor.⁽¹⁾

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,

L. Joseph James
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
LJJ/sdk
Ref: ID# 215719
Enc. Submitted documents

c: Mr. Gary J. Cohen
The Cohen Law Firm
1307 West Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. Because the records being released contain information relating to the requestor's client that would be excepted from disclosure to the general public to protect his privacy, the department must request another ruling from our office if it receives a future request for this information from an individual other than the requestor or his client.