March 15, 2012

Sergeant Rocky Bright

Custodian of Records

Ector County

P.O. Box 2066

Odessa, Texas 79760

OR2012-03873

Dear Mr. Bright:

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# 447803.

The Ector County Sheriff's Office (the "sheriff's office") received a request for specified 9-1-1 calls over a specified time period; information pertaining to case C-35, 113; and visitation records between a named individual, attorneys, or a second named individual over a specified time period. You state the sheriff's office does not have information responsive to portions of the request. ⁽¹⁾ You also state the sheriff's office has released some of the requested information. You claim the submitted 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. We have also received and considered comments from the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (interested party may submit comments stating why information should or should not be released).

Initially, we note portions of the submitted information, which we have marked, are not responsive to the instant request because they pertain to visitation records relating to individuals who are not named in the request. The sheriff's office need not release nonresponsive information in response to this request, and this ruling will not address that information.

Section 552.101 of the Government Code 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 the doctrine of common-law privacy. Common-law privacy protects information that (1) contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976). The type of information considered intimate or 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. Id. at 683.

In Open Records Decision No. 393 (1983), this office concluded that, generally, only that information which either identifies or tends to identify a victim of sexual assault or other sex-related offense may be withheld under common-law privacy; however, because the identifying information was inextricably intertwined with other releasable information, the governmental body was required to withhold the entire report. Open Records Decision No. 393 at 2 (1983); see Open Records Decision No. 339 (1982); see also Morales v. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, writ denied) (identity of witnesses to and victims of sexual harassment was highly intimate or embarrassing information and public did not have a legitimate interest in such information); Open Records Decision No. 440 (1986) (detailed descriptions of serious sexual offenses must be withheld). The requestor in this case knows the identity of the alleged victim. We believe that, in this instance, withholding only identifying information from the requestor would not preserve the victim's common-law right to privacy. We conclude, therefore, the sheriff's office must withhold the information pertaining to case C-35, 113 in its entirety pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with common-law privacy.

Section 552.101 also encompasses constitutional privacy. Constitutional privacy consists of two interrelated types of privacy: (1) the right to make certain kinds of decisions independently and (2) an individual's interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. Open Records Decision No. 455 at 4(1987). The first type protects an individual's autonomy within "zones of privacy," which include matters related to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education. Id. The second type of constitutional privacy requires a balancing between the individual's privacy interests and the public's need to know information of public concern. Id. The scope of information protected is narrower than that under the common-law doctrine of privacy; the information must concern the "most intimate aspects of human affairs." Id. at 5 (citing Ramie v. City of Hedwig Village, Texas, 765 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1985)).

This office has applied privacy to protect certain information about incarcerated individuals. See Open Records Decision Nos. 430 (1985), 428 (1985), 185 (1978). Citing State v. Ellefson, 224 S.E.2d 666 (S.C. 1976), as authority, this office held those individuals who correspond with inmates possess a "first amendment right . . . to maintain communication with [the inmate] free of the threat of public exposure." This office ruled this right would be violated by the release of information that identifies those correspondents because such a release would discourage correspondence. See ORD 185. The information at issue in this ruling was the identities of individuals who had corresponded with inmates. In Open Records Decision No. 185, our office found that "the public's right to obtain an inmate's correspondence list is not sufficient to overcome the first amendment right of the inmate's correspondents to maintain communication with him free of the threat of public exposure." Id. Implicit in this holding is the fact that an individual's association with an inmate may be intimate or embarrassing. In Open Records Decision Nos. 428 and 430, our office determined inmate visitor and mail logs that identify inmates and those who choose to visit or correspond with inmates are protected by constitutional privacy because people who correspond with inmates have a First Amendment right to do so that would be threatened if their names were released. ORD 430. Further, we recognized inmates had a constitutional right to visit with outsiders and could also be threatened if their names were released. See also ORD 185. The rights of those individuals to anonymity were found to outweigh the public's interest in this information. Id.; see ORD 430 (list of inmate visitors protected by constitutional privacy of both inmate and visitors). Although the requestor is the authorized representative of the inmate at issue, we note the requestor does not have a right of access to the responsive visitation information under section 552.023 of the Government Code because the constitutional rights of the other parties are also implicated. See ORD 430. Accordingly, the sheriff's office must withhold the responsive visitation information under section 552.101 in conjunction with constitutional privacy.

In summary, the sheriff's office must withhold the information pertaining to case C-35, 113 in its entirety pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with common-law privacy. The sheriff's office must withhold the responsive visitation information under section 552.101 in conjunction with constitutional privacy.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular information 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 information or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For more information concerning those rights and responsibilities, please visit our website at http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index_orl.php, or call the Office of the Attorney General's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. Questions concerning the allowable charges for providing public information under the Act must be directed to the Cost Rules Administrator of the Office of the Attorney General, toll free, at (888) 672-6787.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Luttrall

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

JL/som

Ref: ID# 447803

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Requestor

(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. We note the Act does not require a governmental body to disclose information that did not exist at the time the request was received. Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio1978, writ dism'd); Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973); Open Records Decision Nos. 452 at 2-3 (1986), 342 at 3 (1982), 87 (1975); see also Open Records Decision Nos. 572 at 1 (1990), 555 at 1-2 (1990), 416 at 5 (1984).

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer