 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
August 3, 2005 Mr. Miles K. Risley
OR2005-06984 Dear Mr. Risley: 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# 229532. The City of Victoria (the "city") received a request for any police records pertaining to two named individuals during a specified time period. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that some of the submitted information, which we have marked, is not responsive to the instant request for information, as it was created outside of the requested time period. This ruling does not address the public availability of any information that is not responsive to the request, and the city need not release that information in response to this request. See Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd). Section 552.101 excepts from public disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Section 552.101 includes confidentiality provisions, such as Family Code section 58.007. Juvenile law enforcement records relating to conduct that occurred on or after September 1, 1997 are confidential under section 58.007 of the Family Code. The relevant language of section 58.007(c) reads as follows: (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), law enforcement records and files concerning a child and information stored, by electronic means or otherwise, concerning the child from which a record or file could be generated may not be disclosed to the public and shall be: (1) if maintained on paper or microfilm, kept separate from adult files and records; (2) if maintained electronically in the same computer system as records or files relating to adults, be accessible under controls that are separate and distinct from controls to access electronic data concerning adults; and (3) maintained on a local basis only and not sent to a central state or federal depository, except as provided by Subchapter B. Police report number 2003-00050430 involves a runaway, which is conduct falling within the scope of section 58.007. See Fam. Code § 51.03(b) (defining "conduct indicating a need for supervision" to include "the voluntary absence of a child from his home without the consent of his parent or guardian for a substantial length of time or without intent to return"). It does not appear that any of the exceptions in section 58.007 apply; therefore, this report is confidential pursuant to section 58.007 (c) of the Family Code. The city must withhold police report number 2003-00050430 from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. Section 552.101 also encompasses the common law right to privacy, which protects information if it is highly intimate or embarrassing, such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and the public has no legitimate interest in it. Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976). Where an individual's criminal history information has been compiled by a governmental entity, the information takes on a character that implicates the individual's right to privacy. See United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989). However, information that refers to an individual solely as a victim, witness, or involved person is not private under Reporters Committee and may not be withheld under section 552.101 on that basis. In this instance, the requestor asks the city for all records concerning two named individuals. Thus, this request implicates the named individuals' right to privacy. To the extent the city maintains records in which the named individuals are portrayed as suspects, defendants, or arrestees, the city must withhold such records. However, police report numbers 2003-00057016 and 2004-00050736 do not identify the named individuals as suspects, defendants, or arrestees. Therefore these reports may not be withheld on the basis of the holding in Reporters Committee. We note that some of the remaining information is excepted from release under section 552.130 of the Government Code.(1) Section 552.130 provides in relevant part: (a) Information is excepted from the requirement of Section 552.021 if the information relates to: (1) a motor vehicle operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state; [or] (2) a motor vehicle title or registration issued by an agency of this state[.] Gov't Code § 552.130(a). Therefore, the city must withhold the information we have marked under section 552.130. Finally, we also note that the remaining information contains social security numbers. Section 552.147 of the Government Code(2) provides that "[t]he social security number of a living person is excepted from" required public disclosure under the Act. Therefore, the city must withhold the social security numbers we have marked in the submitted information under section 552.147.(3) In summary, the city must withhold police report number 2003-00050430 under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 58.007 of the Family Code. To the extent the city maintains records in which the named individuals are portrayed as suspects, defendants, or arrestees, the city must withhold such records under section 552.101 in conjunction with common law privacy. The city must withhold the information we have marked under sections 552.130 and 552.147. The remaining submitted information must be released 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, upon receiving this ruling, the governmental body will either release the public records promptly pursuant to section 552.221(a) of the Government Code or file a lawsuit challenging this ruling pursuant to section 552.324 of the Government Code. If the governmental body fails to do one of these things, 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); Tex. 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, Tamara L. Harswick
c: Timothy and Debbie Ressman
Footnotes 1. The Office of the Attorney General will raise a mandatory exception like section 552.130 on behalf of a governmental body, but ordinarily will not raise other exceptions. Open Records Decision Nos. 481 (1987), 480 (1987), 470 (1987). 2. Added by Act of May 23, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., S.B. 1485, § 1, sec. 552.147(a) (to be codified at Tex. Gov't Code § 552.147). 3. We note that section 552.147(b) of the Government Code authorizes a governmental body to redact a living person's social security number from public release without the necessity of requesting a decision from this office under the Act. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |