Advisory Opinion 00-078
December 29, 2000; City of Hibbing
Background & Issues
A newspaper reporter requested police incident reports from the City of Hibbing regarding an alleged assault, but the police withheld the identities of witnesses and potential suspects on the grounds that the information was part of a nonpublic criminal investigation. The newspaper argued that individuals present during the incident are witnesses whose information must be made available to the public. The Commissioner was asked to decide whether the city was required to release the names of witnesses identified in the incident report.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner determined that the city improperly withheld the information, ruling that witness names and addresses in incident reports are public unless a specific statutory protection applies. This disclosure requirement applies even if an individual named in the report was also considered a suspect or was later determined not to have been present at the scene.
Automated synopsis generated for quick reference only — it has not been reviewed word-for-word against the official record and is not legal advice. Always review the full opinion text below for the Commissioner's actual determination, or see the original document on mn.gov. Think this summary misstates the opinion? Report it.
Excerpted Ruling / ConclusionBased on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Hibbing did not respond appropriately when it denied a request for access to the name and address of a witness of an alleged crime. Unless the identity of a witness qualifies for protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17, the witness's name and address are public government data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(g).
Even if, after the request for the data described above, the law enforcement agency determines that the potential suspect or perpetrator was not present at the scene, the data are classified as public, as part of the response or incident data created in response to a request for service, according to section 13.82, subdivision 6. To meet its obligation under section 13.05, subdivision 5, that all data on individuals are accurate and complete, the Department may want to add a note to the file that acknowledges that an individual was incorrectly identified in the incident report as a witness.
December 29, 2000; City of Hibbing
12/29/2000 10:15:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On November 3, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mark R. Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the Hibbing Daily News. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client's right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Hibbing. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Tourville, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated November 9, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On November 22, 2000, IPA received a response from Richard K. Sellman, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. On October 15, 2000, an alleged assault occurred in Hibbing. The police were not called to the scene, but were contacted by the alleged victim the following day. Mr. Anfinson provided copies of two incident reports: Exhibit 1 contains more details, including the names of witnesses identified by the alleged victim; Exhibit 2 does not contain the identities of witnesses of the alleged assault. A reporter for the Daily News learned of the incident and asked the Hibbing Police Department to provide her with access to so-called response or incident data, which are enumerated at section 13.82, subdivision 6. The Police Department provided the reporter a copy of Exhibit 2. According to Mr. Anfinson: In subsequent conversations with the police chief and the city attorney, the police department took the position that the identities of the alleged perpetrators (or suspects) were not public information, even though these people witnessed the incident. Rather, the identities were subject to the provisions of section 13.82, subd. 7 (criminal investigative data). At the time of the reporter's request, none of the suspects had been charged with respect to the incident at the bar. It also appears that one of the individuals who was initially identified as a suspect in the assault was later determined not to have been present at the bar, apparently owing to a misidentification. However, it is clear from the more detailed incident report enclosed as Exhibit 1 that the police did record that individual's name while obtaining information about the incident from the complainant, and that two individuals . . . witnessed the incident, and were listed as suspects. It is the newspaper's position that where a suspect (or alleged perpetrator) is present at the scene of a possible crime, that individual is at minimum a witness to the incident, and that therefore his or her identity is public under the provisions of section 13.82, subd. 6(g) regardless of whether the individual has been arrested, charged, or cited. This interpretation is based both on the express language of subdivision 6 and on the fact that nowhere else in section 13.82 is there a specific exception referring to a suspect or perpetrator that would seem sufficient to allow authorities to withhold the identity of an individual in that category who was also a possible witness. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Sellman stated that personnel in the Hibbing Police Department took notes as the alleged victim made his statement, and an officer was then assigned to investigate the complaint. The investigating officer further interviewed the alleged victim. According to Mr. Sellman, handwritten notes were taken down as the incident was [initially] reported which were later entered into a computer, which resulted in the incident report that was provided to the reporter (Exhibit 2.) The investigating officer who then interviewed the victim created the more detailed incident report (Exhibit 1.) Mr. Sellman stated: [b]ecause the individuals named as suspects were running for local political offices and the department could be perceived as being bias [sic] in the investigation, . . . the Chief asked the St. Louis County Sheriff's Department to continue the investigation. Mr. Sellman further stated: Clearly Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subd. 6, does not apply to this situation as there was no agency response to the request for service or action initiated by the police department. [The] request was not for an agency's response but to report a crime. This would naturally lead to an investigation of the reported crime which is covered under [section 13.82, subdivision 7], and is [not public.] Reporting a crime is a request for (investigation) service under Subd. 3 which does not list for disclosure the names of witnesses or victims (or suspects). . . . . There was no response by the Hibbing Police Department to a request for service and there were no actions taken by the Hibbing Police Department on its own initiative. The newspaper's request was rather under Subd. 3, Request for service data, being a request to investigate a reported criminal act. All of the information listed under Subd. 3 was provided the newspaper. The matter was then assigned for investigation. The investigation data is confidential or non public. Issues:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
|