• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
A:rlctRNEY
oF
Trxes
GREG
ABtsOTT'
May
5,
2009
oR2009-06000
Dear
Ms.DeLa
Garza:
You
ask
whethercertaininformation
is
subject
to
required
public
disclosureunder
the
publicInfbrmahonAct
(the
"Act"),
chapter
S
jZ
ofthe
GovernmentCode'
Your
requestwasassigned
ID#
342A24'
The
HoustonPoiiceDepafiment
(the'
departmeni")received
a
request
fol
eieven
categories
of
informationfromthe
department
laribooking
system
regarding
all
rnisdemeanor
and
feionymarijuanalawviolationsdunngaspecifiedtrmgqlod.Youciaimther.equested
informationtsexceptedfromdisclorur",,nd"'section552'101oftheGovemmentcode'
we
have
consideredtheexceptionyou
ciaim'
we
note
a
portionofthe
requested
information
issubject
to
a
previousdetermination
issued
by
this
officein
openRecordsLetterNo'
zooq-o
:,qs
Qoaq,
In
thatdecision,
this
office
ru1ed
the
department
may
notwithhotJ
uny
portion
of
'h-t
submitted
information
under
section552.10i
inconjunctionwith.o*-o"-iu*privacy'
Youhavenotindicatedthefacts
and
circumstanceshave
changedsince
the
issuance
of
this
prior
ruling'
Thus'
with
regard
to
therequested
information
ihut
i,
identicalto
the
infonnationpre'iously
requested
and
ruied
on
bythisoffice,we
conclude
the
departmentmust
continueto
leiy
onouf
ru1ing
in
open
Records
Letter
No.
20a9-03745
as
a
previousdetetmination
and
release
the
information
atissue
in
accordance
with
that
decisio
n'
see
open
Records
Decision
No'
673
(2001)(so
long
as
1aw,
facts,
andcircumstances
on
which
prior
ruling
wasbased
have
not
changed,
first
typeof
previousdetermination
existswhererequested
information
is
precisely
same
information
as
was
addressed
in
a
prior
attoffIey
generai
nrling'
rulingis
addlessed
toivis.Candiceivi.Assistant
Ci
City
of
P.
6uston.Texas
7700
1
-0368
 
Ms.
Candice
M.
De
La
Garza
-
Pace
2
same
govefilmental
body,
and
ruling
concludes
that
informationis
or
is
not
excepted
fromdisclosure).To
the
extentthe
requested
informationis not
encompassed
by
theprevious
ruling,
we
will
considerthesubmitted
argument.
We must
address
the
department'sobligationsunder
the
Act.
Section
552.301
of
the
Goverrment
Codedescribesthe
proceduralobligations
placed on
a
goverrunentaibodythat
receives
a
written
request
for
information
that
it
wishes
to
withhold.
Pursuant
to
section
552.301(e)
of
theGoverrunent
Code,
the
governmentalbody
is
requiredtosubmit tothis
offlrce
within
fi{teen
business
days
of
receiving
the
request
(
1)
generai
written
commentsstating
thereasons
why
the
statedexceptions
applythat
wouldallow
the
information
to
be
withheld,
(2)
a
copy
of
the written
request
for
information,
(3) a
signedstatementorsufficient
evidence
showing
the
date
the
governmentalbodyreceived
the
wntten
req
uest.
ancl
(4)
a
copyof
the
specific
information
requestedor
representattve
samples,
iabeledto
indicatewhich
exceptions
appiy
to
which
partsof
the
documents
.
See
Gov'
tCode
$
5
52'3
0
i
(e).
Thedepartment
received
the
request
on
February
75,
2009.
As
of
this
date,
you
have not
submittedto
this
office
argumentsexplaining
why
thestated
exceptionsapply
or
a
copy
or
representativesampie
of
the remaining
information
requested.Consequently,we
find
thedepartment
failedto
compi,v
with
the
requirements
of
section
552'301.
pursuant
to
section5523A2
of
the
GovernmentCode,agoveffImental
body'sfailure
to
complyu,ith
the
requirements
of
section
552.30i
results
in
thelegai
presumption
that the
requlsted
infonnation
is
public
and
must
bereleaseduniess
a
compelling
reasonexiststo
withhold
the
informationfrorndisclosure.
See
id.
$
552.302;
Hancoclr
v.
State
Bd.
o.f
l^s.,797
S.W.2d
379,38i-82
(Tex.
App.-Austin
1990,no
writ)
(govenrmental
bodyruust
make
compellingdemonstration
toovercome
presumption
of
openness
pursuani tostatutorypredecessor
to
section
552.302;;
OpenRecords
Decision
No.
319
(1982).
Nonna11y,
a
compelling
reasonto
rvithhokiinformation
exists
when
some
other source
of
law
makes
the
informationconfidentiai
orwhere
third
party
interests
are at
stake.
Open
Records
Decision
No.
i
50at
Z
(1977).
Although,you
claimthe
requested
information
is
excepted
from
<iisciosureuncier
section
552.10i
of
the
GovernrnentCode,
whichis
a
mandatoryexception.
because
youhave
notsubrnitted
therequested
inforrnation
for
our
review,
wehaveno basis
for
finding
any
oftheinformation
confidential
by
iaw.
Furthermore,by
faiiing
tosubmitany
informationfor
our
review,
wehaveno
basis
forfinding
it
confidential
undertheciaimedmandatory
exceptions.
Thus,
wehave
no
choice
butto
orderthe
departmentto
release
ihe
requested
information
in
accordance
with
section5523A2of
the
Governmeni
Code.
if
you
believe
the
information
is
confidential
and
may
not
iawfuliybe
reieased,you
mustchallengethis
rulingin
courtpursuant
to
section
552.324
of
theGovetnment
Code.
In
summary,
the
department
must
release
the
information
subject
to
the
previousdetermination
issued
bythis
office
in
Open
Records
LetterNo.
2A09-03745.The
remaininginfotmation
must
be
released.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...