Click for home page

December 11, 2002

Mr. Nghiem V. Doan
Deputy City Attorney
City of Pearland
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77581


Dear Mr. Doan:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 173462.

The Pearland Police Department (the "department") received a request for copies of the written disposition pertaining to a specified complaint and the internal affairs investigation that was conducted pursuant to that complaint. You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and have reviewed the submitted information.

You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.101 in conjunction with section 143.089 of the Local Government Code.(1) Section 143.089 contemplates two different types of personnel files, one that the city is required to maintain as part of the department officer's civil service file, and one that the department may maintain for its own internal use. See Local Gov't Code 143.089(a), (g). The civil service file must contain certain specified items, including documents relating to any misconduct in those cases where the department took disciplinary action against the officer. See id. 143.089(a)(2). However, documents relating to any alleged misconduct or disciplinary action taken must be removed from the civil service file if the department determines that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct or that the disciplinary action was taken without just cause. See id. 143.089(b), (c). Information that reasonably relates to an officer's employment relationship with the department and that is maintained in a department's internal file pursuant to section 143.089(g) is confidential and must not be released. See City of San Antonio v. San Antonio Express-News, 47 S.W.3d 556

(Tex. App.-- San Antonio 2000, pet. denied); City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney General, 851 S.W.2d 946, 949 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, writ denied). Thus, subsections (a)-(c) limit the contents of the civil service file.

Subsection (g) authorizes, but does not require, the department to maintain for its use a separate and independent, internal personnel file on an officer. Section 143.089(g) provides:

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.

Local Gov't Code 143.089(g). In City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney General, 851 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, writ denied), the court addressed a request for information contained in a police officer's personnel file maintained by the department for its use and addressed the applicability of section 143.089(g) to that file. In that case, the records included in the personnel file related to complaints against the police officer for which no disciplinary action was taken. See id. The court determined that section 143.089(g) made these records confidential. See id at 949. You state that the internal affairs investigation at issue found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain any charge of misconduct against the officer named in the request. Thus, we understand the department to contend that the information at issue is maintained within the personnel file maintained by the department for this officer. We, therefore, agree that the information is confidential pursuant to section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code and, thus, must be withheld from disclosure pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code.

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.


Ronald J. Bounds
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
Ref: ID# 173462
Enc. Submitted documents

c: Robert B. Wieners
Chief of Police
City of Friendswood
109 East Willowick Avenue
Friendswood, Texas 77546-3815
(w/o enclosures)



1. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision. See Gov't Code 552.101. Section 552.101 encompasses information that is protected from disclosure by other statutes.

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