June 24, 2015

Honorable Ken Paxton

Texas Attorney General
ATTN: Open Records Division
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548

Re:

Response to City of Forth Worth Request for Texas Attorney General Decision Denying
Disclosure of Public Information Request No. W043069 from Stephen Benavides
Request for Number of Officer Involved Shootings from 2004 through 2014

Dear Attorney General Paxton:

On May 28, 2015 I submitted a request for information on behalf of Dallas Communities
Organizing for Change (DCOC), to the City of Fort Worth (the City), asking for information
regarding officer involved shootings from Janurary 1, 2004 through December 31, 2014. The
City believes that the records responsive to the request are excepted from disclosure under
552.101 of the Texas Goverment Code, as well as Open Records Decision No.s 565 (1989), 600
(1992), 545 (1990), 470 (1987), 440 (1986), and are therefore seeking a ruling to avoid
disclosure of this information.
DCOC disagrees that records for officer involved shootings are protected by common law
privacy as argued by the City, and respectfully submit the following argument in support of
public disclosure of the records at question.

Response to City of Fort Worth Public Information Request No. W043069

1

Common Law Privacy Does Not Apply to Officer Involved Shooting Records
In their request for a decision, the City does not imply that the information requested is
protected from disclosure because it involves detection, investigation, or prosecution of a crime,
or any ongoing or pending litigation, but rather they rely on an application of common-law
privacy. The City rests the requested denial of disclosure on 552.101 of the Texas Government
Code, Indus. Found. v. Texas Indus.. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685, (Tex. 1976), which
provides that information is confidential only if it is (1) information that is highly intimate or
embarrassing, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person and
(2) not of legitmate concern to the public.

The Texas Supreme Court requires that both prongs of the test be satisfied for
common-law privacy to apply. The City fails to satisfy either requirement.
The name, race and/or ethnicity, gender, and age of the suspect involved in an officer
invoved shooting are all types of information contained in public court records and are not
excepted from disclosure as described in 552.022 (17). The Fort Worth Police Department also
produces reports, audits, evaluations, and/or investigations of these types of incidents that
specifically include information such as date, address and police precinct of the incident, whether
or not the shooting resulted in death or serious injury, type of crime(s) alleged to have been
committed during the incident, and the name of the officer involved. Sections 552.022 (1)(2)(5)
protects all categories of these types of requests from exception for disclosure, except those as
provided by 552.108.
Indus. Found. clearly defines what constitutes intimate or embarrassing information
protected under common-law privacy and may include medical records, sexual assault victims
indentity, mental health records, psychological reports, NCIC and TCIC computer based criminal
history information, and juvenile law enforcement records. The request submitted by DCOC
does not include these categories, and does not fall under 552.101s definition of protected
information. The publication of the information requested would not be considered highly
intimate or embarrassing to reasonable person, and are publicly accessible documents commonly
released by other municipal police departments and media outlets across the state.
The City also argues that a compilation of an individuals criminal history is highly
embarrassing information and that publication would be highly objectionable to a reasonable
person. U.S. Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee fo Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S.
749, 764 (1989). The U.S. Supreme Court drew a disctinct line between public records found in

Response to City of Fort Worth Public Information Request No. W043069

2

local police departments and courthouse files, and that of a compilation of ones criminal history
similar to an FBI Rap Sheet, which was at question in U.S. DOJ v Reporters Comm.
A single shooting incident and any potential or existing criminal charge(s) resulting from
that single incident does not constitue a compilation of ones criminal hsitory, is not a criminal
history summary, and does not resemble an FBI Rap-Sheet in anyway. Justice Stevens defines
a rap sheet as a history of arrests, charges, convictions, and incarcerations of the subject.,
going on to say that .an individual's privacy interest in criminal history information that is a
matter of public record was minimal, at best. Using this definition of a Rap Sheet it is clear
that U.S. DOJ v Reporters Comm. does not apply to individual officer invovled shooting
incidents.
The City also fails to satisfy the second prong by failing to make an argument as to why
the information requested is not of public interest. Information regarding officer invovled
shootings is a very serious and legitimate concern to the public. The public has a substantial
interest in having access to all information detailing the application of deadly force by a law
enforcement agencies, because these types of commuity-law enforcement interactions can and
often do lead to severe injury or death.
DCOC believes that the submitted request for information does not fall under common-law
privacy as argued by the City, and should be released in its entirety.

Respectfully Submitted,

SMB15
Stephen M. Benavides - Co-Founder
Dallas Communities Organizing for Change

Enclosures
c:

Victoria D. Honey
Assistant City Attorney
City of Fort Worth
via electronic mail: Rosanna.Mancillas@fortworthtexas.gov

Response to City of Fort Worth Public Information Request No. W043069

3