07-24-03 Fill Dirt Review Committee minutes

Browse Search

e e. Page 1 of2 Open Records Decision No. 279 September 14, 1981 Re: Whether name of person who reports zoning violation is open to the publ Honorable Don Rorschach Assistant City Attorney City of Irving 825 West Irving Blvd. Irving, Texas 75060 Dear Mr. Rorschach: You have requested our decision as to whether the identity of a person who reports a zoning ordinance violation is available to the public. You suggest that t information is excepted from disclosure by sections 3(a) (1), 3(a) (8) and 3(a) (11) of Open Records Act, article 6252~17a, V.T.C.S. You state that the person who violated ordinance is subject to prosecution in municipal court. You first contend that the identity of the complainant is excepted by sectio 3(a) (1), as information deemed confidential by the informer's privilege. On ~he bas Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), this office has on several occasions h the informer's privilege applicable to communications made to law enforcement offici regarding the alleged commission of a crime. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 172, 156 (1977). In Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. City of Burlington, Vermont, 351 F.2 762 (D.C. Cir. 1965), the court discussed the rationale for the privilege: The purpose of the privilege is not to protect the particular informer from retaliation, but to protect the flow of information to the Government . . .. [I]t rests on the assumption that a citizen, recognizing the risk of retaliation, will be more likely to inform if he knows that his identify will be kept secret. The privilege is maintained to encourage possible informers in the future by giving them some assurance of anonymity. 351 Fo2d at 768. Although the privilege is usually invoked in the context of a criminal case, applies as well to administrative officials having a duty of inspection or of law enforcement within their particular spheres. Wigmore, Evidence, S2374, at 767 (1961 ed.), and cases cited therein. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, refuses t disclose the identity of complainants. 16 C.F.R. S2.2(d). In Evans v. Department 0 Transportation of the United States, 446 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1971), the Court of Appe for the Fifth Circuit upheld the refusal by the Federal Aviation Administration to r a letter which charged an airp~ane pilot with acts indicative of behavior disorder a mental abnormality. The administrator of the agency, who relied on the law enforcem exception in the federal Freedom of Information Act, had determined that disclosure the information would adversely affect the interest of the informant. The court obs that, if the information were released to the pilot: few individuals, if any, would come forth to embroil themselves in controversy or possible recrimination by notifying the Federal Aviation Agency of something which might justify investigation. 446 F.2d at 824. As we have noted, the person who violated the zoning ordinance in question i subject to prosecution in municipal court. The violator would, therefore, be guilty