Advisory Opinion 07-011
May 16, 2007; Metro Gang Strike Force
Background & Issues
An individual submitted multiple requests to the Metro Gang Strike Force seeking copies of law enforcement data about themselves but received no response. The individual asked whether the Strike Force complied with state public records law regarding the request.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner determined that the Metro Gang Strike Force failed to comply with state public records law regarding the data request.
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 that X raised is as follows:
The Metro Gang Strike Task Force did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #1 of the data request).
May 16, 2007; Metro Gang Strike Force
5/16/2007 10:14:43 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:
On April 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated April 3, 2007, from X. In X's letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Gang Strike Force. (The Commissioner notes this organization is now the Metro Gang Strike Force.) IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Fletcher, Ramsey County Sheriff, in response to X's request. The Commissioner is under the impression that Sheriff Fletcher is the responsible authority for the Strike Force. The purposes of this letter, dated April 11, 2007, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office's position. The Commissioner did not receive a response. A summary of the facts as X provided them is as follows. In a letter dated February 15, 2007, X wrote to Sheriff Fletcher and asked for copies of certain data that appear to be related to a criminal investigation. In a letter dated March 8, 2007, X wrote again to Sheriff Fletcher and asked for the data s/he requested in the February 15, 2007, letter. In the opinion request, X wrote: On February 15, 2007 I submitted a letter requesting access to data about myself under [Chapter 13] to Bob Fletcher, assuming that he is the responsible authority for the [Metro] Gang Strike Force. . . . With no response from him I submitted a second request on March 8, 2007, today's date is April 3, 2007 and I have not receive [sic] a response from him. . . .
Issue:
Based on X's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:
The following analysis is based on the understanding that the Metro Gang Strike Force is a joint powers entity created by multiple counties and cities. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 - joint exercise of powers.) The Commissioner also understands that Ramsey County is the fiscal agent for the Strike Force and that Sheriff Fletcher is the responsible authority. As previous advisory opinions have discussed, for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a joint powers entity is a statewide system. Therefore, the Strike Force is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. It appears the data X requested are law enforcement data classified pursuant to section 13.82. Some law enforcement data are public, some are private, and some are confidential. Regarding any data of which X is the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public and private. The Strike Force should have provided a response to X about these data within ten business days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) X first made a request for the data in a letter dated February 15, 2007. As of the date of X's opinion request, over six weeks later, apparently X had not received any response. The Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13. Regarding any data of which X is not the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public. The Strike Force should have provided a response to X about these data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.) Again, by not providing any response to X before April 11, 2007, the Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: May 16, 2007 |