 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
April 12, 2006 Ms. Leann D. Guzman
OR2006-03648 Dear Ms. Guzman: 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# 246104. The City of Fort Worth (the "city") received a request for information regarding the requestor's file with the city's Human Relations Commission. You state that you will release some information to the requestor, but claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.115, 552.136, and 552.147 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. This section encompasses information made confidential by other statutes. You claim that the highlighted information in Exhibit E is a fingerprint that is governed by sections 560.001, 560.002, and 560.003 of the Government Code. Chapter 560 of the Government Code provides that a governmental body may not release fingerprint information except in certain limited circumstances. See Gov't Code §§ 560.001 (defining "biometric identifier" to include fingerprints), .002 (prescribing manner in which biometric identifiers must be maintained and circumstances in which they can be released), .003 (providing that biometric identifiers in possession of governmental body are exempt from disclosure under Act). You state that section 560.002 does not permit the release of the fingerprint in this instance. Accordingly, the city must withhold the fingerprint you have highlighted in Exhibit E under section 552.101 and section 560.003 of the Government Code. You claim that Exhibit C and some information you have highlighted in Exhibit D is protected by common-law privacy, which is also encompassed by section 552.101. Common-law privacy protects information if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976). The type of information considered intimate and embarrassing by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation included information relating to sexual assault, pregnancy, mental or physical abuse in the workplace, illegitimate children, psychiatric treatment of mental disorders, attempted suicide, and injuries to sexual organs. 540 S.W.2d at 683. In addition, this office has found that the following types of information are excepted from required public disclosure under common-law privacy: an individual's criminal history when compiled by a governmental body, see Open Records Decision No. 565 (citing United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)); personal financial information not relating to a financial transaction between an individual and a governmental body, see Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990); and some kinds of medical information or information indicating disabilities or specific illnesses, see Open Records Decision Nos. 470 (1987) (illness from severe emotional and job-related stress), 455 (1987) (prescription drugs, illnesses, operations, and physical disabilities). We agree that the financial information you have marked, in addition to the information we have marked, must be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy.(1) The city also asserts that the submitted birth certificate must be withheld under section 552.115 of the Government Code. This section provides that a birth record maintained by the bureau of vital statistics of the Texas Department of Health or a local registration official is excepted from required public disclosure except that "a birth record is public information and available to the public on and after the 75th anniversary of the date of birth as shown on the record filed with the bureau of vital statistics or local registration official." Since section 552.115 only applies to a birth certificate maintained by the bureau of vital statistics or local registration official, the city may not withhold the certificate of birth registration pursuant to that provision. See Open Records Decision No. 338 (1982). Finally, the submitted exhibits contain social security numbers. Section 552.147 of the Government Code 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 you have marked under section 552.147.(2) In summary, the city must withhold the financial information that you have marked, in addition to the information we have marked, under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with common-law privacy. The city must also withhold the submitted fingerprint under section 560.003 of the Government Code, in conjunction with section 552.101 of the Government Code. The social security numbers you have marked must be withheld under section 552.147. The rest of the submitted information must be released. 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); 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 Office of the Attorney General 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. 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, Brian J. Rogers
c: Ms. Tomoko Yamada
Footnotes 1. As our ruling on this issue is dispositive, we need not address your section 552.136 argument. 2. 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 |