A:rlctRNEY oF Trxes

GREG ABtsOTT'

May 5, 2009

ivis. Candice ivi.

Assistant Ci
City of
P.
6uston. Texas 7700 1 -0368
oR2009-06000

Dear Ms. De La Garza:

to required public disclosure under the

You ask whether certain information is subject
jZ Code' Your request was
public Infbrmahon Act (the "Act"), chapter S of the Government
assigned ID# 342A24'
eieven categories
The Houston Poiice Depafiment
(the' departmeni") received a request fol
all rnisdemeanor and
of information from the department lari booking system regarding
feionymarijuanalawviolationsdunngaspecifiedtrmgqlod.Youciaimther.equested
oftheGovemmentcode' we
informationtsexceptedfromdisclorur",,nd"'section552'101
have considered the exception you
ciaim'

is subject to a previous determination issued

we note a portion ofthe requested information this office
zooq-o :,qs Qoaq, In that decision,
by this office in open Records LetterNo'
uny portion of submitted information under
ru1ed the department may not withhotJ 'h-t
Youhavenotindicatedthefacts
section552.10i inconjunctionwith.o*-o"-iu*privacy' prior ruling' Thus' with regard
the issuance of this
and circumstances have changed since and
to the infonnation pre'iously requested
to the requested information ihut i, identical ouf ru1ing in
department must continue to leiy on
ruied on by this office, we conclude the the
Records Letter No. 20a9-03745 as a previous detetmination and release
open No' 673
that decisio n' see open Records Decision
information at issue in accordance with
1aw, facts, and circumstances on
which prior ruling was based have not
(2001) (so long as is precisely
exists where requested information
changed, first type of previous determination is addlessed to
same information as was addressed
in a prior attoffIey generai nrling' ruling
Ms. Candice M. De La Garza - Pace 2

same govefilmental body, and ruling concludes that information is or is not excepted from
disclosure). To the extent the requested information is not encompassed by the previous
ruling, we will consider the submitted argument.

We must address the department's obligations under the Act. Section 552.301 of the
Goverrment Code describes the procedural obligations placed on a goverrunentai body that
receives a written request for information that it wishes to withhold. Pursuant to
section 552.301(e) of the Goverrunent Code, the governmental body is required to submit to
this offlrce within fi{teen business days of receiving the request ( 1) generai written comments
stating the reasons why the stated exceptions apply that would allow the information to be
withheld, (2) a copy of the written request for information, (3) a signed statement or
sufficient evidence showing the date the governmental body received the wntten req uest. ancl
(4) a copy of the specific information requested or representattve samples, iabeled to indicate
which exceptions appiy to which parts of the documents . See Gov' tCode $ 5 52'3 0 i (e). The
department received the request on February 75, 2009. As of this date, you have not
submitted to this office arguments explaining why the stated exceptions apply or a copy or
representative sampie of the remaining information requested. Consequently, we find the
department failed to compi,v with the requirements of section 552'301.

pursuant to section 5523A2 of the Government Code, a goveffImental body's failure to

comply u,ith the requirements of section 552.30i results in the legai presumption that the
requlsted infonnation is public and must be released uniess a compelling reason exists to
withhold the information frorn disclosure. 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 compelling demonstration to overcome presumption of openness pursuani to statutory
predecessor to section 552.302;; Open Records Decision No. 319 (1982). Nonna11y, a
compelling reason to rvithhoki information exists when some other source of law makes the
information confidentiai or where third party interests are at stake. Open Records Decision
No. i 50 at Z (1977). Although, you claim the requested information is excepted from
<iisciosure uncier section 552.10i of the Governrnent Code, which is a mandatory exception.
because you have not subrnitted the requested inforrnation for our review, we have no basis
for finding any ofthe information confidential by iaw. Furthermore, by faiiing to submit any
information for our review, we have no basis for finding it confidential under the ciaimed
mandatory exceptions. Thus, we have no choice but to order the department to release ihe
requested information in accordance with section 5523A2 of the Governmeni Code. if
you
believe the information is confidential and may not iawfuliybe reieased, you must challenge
this ruling in court pursuant to section 552.324 of the Govetnment Code.

In summary, the department must release the information subject to the previous
determination issued by this office in Open Records LetterNo. 2A09-03745. The remaining
infotmation must be released.
Ms. Can<iice M. De La Garza - Page 3

This letter ruling is limited to the particular information at issue

in this request and limited
to the f'acts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be
relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other information or any other circumstances'

responsibilities of the
This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and
rights and
gou"rn*"ntal body and of the requestor. Formore information concerning those
iesponsibiiities, piease visit our website 31 ltttp:i'irvw'ur'.oas.state.tx.us'ropenlindex:ofi'PhP,
or call the Office of the Attorney General's Open Govetnment Hotiine, tollpublic
free'

at (877) 673-6839. Questions concerning the allowable charges for

providing
of the office of
information under the Act must be directed io the cost Rules Administrator
the Attorney General at (512) 475-2497 '

Sincerely,

Olivia A. Maceo
Assistant AttorneY General
Open Records Division

OM/ri

Ref: lD# 342024

Enc. Submitteddocuments

Requestor
(w/o enclosures)