Click for home page

December 3, 2002

Mr. Steven D. Monté
Assistant City Attorney
Criminal Law and Police Division
City of Dallas
2014 Main Street, Room 501
Dallas, Texas 75201


Dear Mr. Monté:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID#172987.

The Dallas Police Department (the "department") received a request to inspect the contents of the desks of three police officers. The requestor also asks to copy the contents he desires of the desks. You first claim that the request is overly broad and vague as to the type of documents that would satisfy the request for information. In the alternative, you claim that portions of the requested information are excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.102, 552.117, and 552.130 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information from the officers' desks.(1)

Initially we address your assertion that the request is vague and overly broad. Section 552.222(b) of the Government Code provides that if a governmental body is unable to determine the nature of the records being sought, it may ask the requestor to clarify the request so that the desired records may be identified.(2) Consequently, you have asked the requestor to "clarify" his request. However, section 552.222 permits a governmental body to ask the requestor to clarify or narrow the scope of his request only if the governmental body determines in good faith that it cannot identify the requested information, or that the scope of information requested is unduly broad. Open Records Decision No. 663 (1999). In this instance, it is apparent from a plain reading of the request as well as, from your briefing, that the department was provided with sufficient information to identify the requested records. See generally Open Records Decision No. 497 (1988) (request is valid so long as it reasonably can be identified as request for public records).

Next, we note that a portion of the submitted information is a medical record, access to which is governed by the Medical Practice Act (the "MPA"), chapter 159 of the Occupations Code. Section 159.002 of the MPA provides:

(a) A communication between a physician and a patient, relative to or in connection with any professional services as a physician to the patient, is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter.

(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. Information that is subject to the MPA includes both medical records and information obtained from those medical records. See Occ. Code 159.002, .004; Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). This office has concluded that the protection afforded by section 159.002 extends only to records created by either a physician or someone under the supervision of a physician. See Open Records Decision Nos. 487 (1987), 370(1983), 343 (1982).

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). Medical records may be released only as provided under the MPA. Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). We have marked the medical record that is subject to the MPA. This information may be released only in accordance with the MPA.

We now turn to your argument that some of the submitted information is protected by sections 552.101 and 552.102 in conjunction with the common law right to privacy. Section 552.102 excepts from disclosure "information in a personnel file, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Gov't Code 552.102(a). In Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, 652 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App.--Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court ruled that the test to be applied to information claimed to be protected under section 552.102 is the same as the test formulated by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation for information claimed to be protected under the doctrine of common-law privacy as incorporated by section 552.101 of the act. See Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 683-85 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Accordingly, we will consider your section 552.101 and section 552.102 claims together.

For information to be protected from public disclosure by the common-law right of privacy, the information must meet the criteria set out in Industrial Foundation. In Industrial Foundation, the Texas Supreme Court stated that information is excepted from disclosure if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the release of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. Id. at 685. Employee privacy under section 552.102 is significantly narrower than common-law privacy under section 552.101, however, because of the greater public interest in the disclosure of information relating to public employees. See Open Records Decision Nos. 470 (1987), 444 (1986), 423 (1984). Generally, section 552.102 protects only that information that reveals "intimate details of a highly personal nature." See Open Records Decision No. 315 (1982).

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. This office has found that information related to some kinds of medical records or information indicating disabilities or specific illnesses is excepted from required public disclosure under common law privacy. See Open Records Decision Nos. 470 (1987) (illness from severe emotional and job-related stress), 455 (1987) (prescription drugs, illnesses, operations, and physical handicaps). We have marked the information that the department must withhold under common law privacy.

Prior decisions of this office have also found that financial information relating to an individual ordinarily satisfies the first requirement of the test for common law privacy, but that there is a legitimate public interest in the essential facts about a financial transaction between an individual and a governmental body. See Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990), 373 (1983). For example, a public employee's allocation of his salary to a voluntary investment program or to optional insurance coverage which is offered by his employer is a personal investment decision and information about it is excepted from disclosure under the common law right of privacy. See Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990). However, information revealing that an employee participates in a group insurance plan funded partly or wholly by the governmental body is not excepted from disclosure. See Open Records Decision No. 600 at 10 (1992). Further, information revealing that an employee participates in and has enrolled persons in addition to himself in a group insurance plan funded partly or wholly by the governmental body is not excepted from disclosure. Id. After examining the submitted information, it is not apparent whether the information pertaining to the employee's health coverage is mandatory or voluntary. Thus, if the health insurance plan is an optional plan, all information pertaining to the plan must be withheld under common law privacy. However, if the health insurance plan is funded partly or wholly by the department, then such information is not private.

You also claim that section 552.117 is applicable to some of the submitted information. Section 552.117(2) of the Government Code excepts from public disclosure information that reveals a peace officer's home address, home telephone number, social security number, and whether the officer has family members. "Peace officer" is defined by article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have marked the information in the submitted document that must be withheld pursuant to section 552.117(2).

Lastly, you argue that the submitted information contains driver's license information that is protected by section 552.130. Section 552.130 provides in relevant part:

(a) Information is excepted from the requirement of Section 552.021 if the information relates to:

(1) a motor vehicle operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state; [or]

(2) a motor vehicle title or registration issued by an agency of this state[.]

Gov't Code 552.130. Therefore, you must withhold the driver's license number we have marked under section 552.130.

In summary, we have marked the information that may be released only in accordance with the MPA and we have noted the type of information that must be withheld under common law privacy. We have also marked the information that must be withheld under sections 552.117 and 552.130. All remaining unmarked 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, 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.


Heather Pendleton Ross
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
Ref: ID# 172987
Enc: Submitted documents

c: Mr. Jay Cooper
1520 Janwood Drive
Plano, Texas 75075
(w/o enclosures)



1. We assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office.

2. Section 552.222(b) also provides that "[i]f a large amount of information has been requested, the governmental body may discuss with the requestor how the scope of a request might be narrowed[.]"

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

Home | ORLs