Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
December 5, 2002
Mr. John D. Armstrong
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 173196.
The La Porte Police Department (the "department"), which you represent, received a request for information regarding the Internal Affairs investigation of an incident that occurred at the requestor's home. 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 must address the department's obligations under section 552.301 of the Government Code. Pursuant to section 552.301(e), a governmental body is required to submit to this office within fifteen business days of receiving an open records request (1) general written comments stating the reasons why the stated exceptions apply that would allow the information to be withheld, (2) a copy of the written request for information, (3) a signed statement or sufficient evidence showing the date the governmental body received the written request, and (4) a copy of the specific information requested or representative samples, labeled to indicate which exceptions apply to which parts of the documents. You did not provide this office with a copy of the written request for information.
Pursuant to section 552.302 of the Government Code, a governmental body's failure to submit to this office the information required in section 552.301(e) results in the legal presumption that the information is public and must be released. Information that is presumed public must be released unless a governmental body demonstrates a compelling reason to withhold the information to overcome this presumption. See Hancock v. State Bd. of Ins., 797 S.W.2d 379, 381-82 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ) (governmental body must make compelling demonstration to overcome presumption of openness pursuant to statutory predecessor to Gov't Code § 552.302); Open Records Decision No. 319 (1982). As section 552.101 of the Government Code can provide a compelling reason to overcome the presumption of openness, we will address your arguments under that exception. See Open Records Decision No. 150 (1977) (presumption of openness overcome by a showing that the information is made confidential by another source of law or affects third party interests).
Next, we note that the submitted information pertains to a completed investigation and, therefore, falls within the scope of section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022 makes "a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body" public information unless expressly made confidential under other law or "except as provided by [s]ection 552.108[.]" Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(1).
You contend that the requested information is made confidential under section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code and must therefore be withheld from the public pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code.(1) Section 143.089 provides in pertinent part:
(a) The director [of the fire fighters' and police officers' civil service] or the director's designee shall maintain a personnel file on each fire fighter and police officer. The personnel file must contain any letter, memorandum, or document relating to:
. . . .
(2) any misconduct by the fire fighter or the police officer if the letter, memorandum, or document is from the employing department and if the misconduct resulted in disciplinary action by the employing department in accordance with this chapter; and
. . . .
(c) A letter, memorandum, or document relating to disciplinary action taken against the fire fighter or police officer or to alleged misconduct by the fire fighter or police officer that is placed in the person's personnel file as provided by Subsection (a)(2) shall be removed from the employee's file if the commission finds that:
(1) the disciplinary action was taken without just cause; or
(2) the charge of misconduct was not supported by sufficient evidence.
. . . .
(f) The director or the director's designee may not release any information contained in a fire fighter's or police officer's personnel file without first obtaining the person's written permission, unless the release of the information is required by law.
(g) A fire or police department may maintain a personnel file on a fire fighter or police officer employed by the department for the department's use, but the department may not release any information contained in the department file to any agency or person requesting information relating to a fire fighter or police officer. The department shall refer to the director or the director's designee a person or agency that requests information that is maintained in the fire fighter's or police officer's personnel file.
In Open Records Decision No. 562 (1990), this office discussed the confidentiality of personnel file information maintained by cities that have adopted the police officers' civil service law in accordance with the provisions of chapter 143 of the Local Government Code. Section 143.089 of the Local Government Code provides for the creation of two personnel files: one that is maintained by the city's civil service director and the other by the city police department.
Section 143.089(a) specifies certain types of information that must be contained in the civil service file; such records are not made confidential under section 143.089 and thus are subject to release unless an exception to required public disclosure applies. See Local Gov't Code § 143.089(f); Open Records Decision No. 562 at 6 (1990). However, information maintained in a police department's internal file pursuant to section 143.089(g) is confidential and must not be released. City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney General, 851 S.W.2d 946, 949 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, writ denied).
A police officer's disciplinary records must be contained in the civil service file only if the misconduct results in disciplinary action by the police department "in accordance with this chapter." Local Gov't Code § 143.089(a)(2). Otherwise, those records must be maintained as part of the police department's internal file contemplated under section 143.089(g). See generally Attorney General Opinion JC-0257 (2000).
You assert that the submitted information pertains to an investigation resulting from a complaint filed by the requestor charging a particular officer with abusive tactics and professional misconduct. You explain that, as there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct, the submitted information is maintained by the department in an internal file as authorized under section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code. A review of the submitted information confirms that it does not relate to disciplinary action as defined under chapter 143. See Local Gov't Code §§ 143.051-.055 (removal, suspension, demotion, and uncompensated duty). Thus, we conclude that the submitted information is confidential pursuant to section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code and must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code.
We note, however, that some of the records in the internal departmental file are records governed by the Medical Practice Act (the "MPA").(2) Section 159.002 of the MPA provides:
(b) A record of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient by a physician that is created or maintained by a physician is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter.
(c) A person who receives information from a confidential communication or record as described by this chapter, other than a person listed in Section 159.004 who is acting on the patient's behalf, may not disclose the information except to the extent that disclosure is consistent with the authorized purposes for which the information was first obtained.
Occ. Code § 159.002(b), (c). The medical records must be released upon the patient's signed, written consent, provided that the consent specifies (1) the information to be covered by the release, (2) reasons or purposes for the release, and (3) the person to whom the information is to be released. Occ. Code §§ 159.004, .005. Section 159.002(c) also requires that any subsequent release of medical records be consistent with the purposes for which the governmental body obtained the records. Open Records Decision No. 565 at 7 (1990). Here, the requestor is the person whose medical records are at issue. The MPA permits disclosure of MPA records to the patient, a person authorized to act on the patient's behalf, or a person who has the written consent of the patient. Occ. Code §§ 159.003, .004, .005. Thus, the department may release the MPA records, which we have marked, only in accordance with the MPA. Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991).
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 Department of Public 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.
Karen A. Eckerle
c: Ms. Janet Robin Woodard
1. Section 552.101 of the Government Code protects "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision."
2. Under the rules of statutory construction, a specific statute prevails over a more general statute. Gov't Code § 311.026, City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 870 S.W.2d. 21 (Tex. 1994).
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US