Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Bexar County / San Antonio public safety system-

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:45:51 -0400

As expected, the Texas Attorney General ruled in the County's favor
regarding the release of open records regarding the
Bexar County / San Antonio public safety system.

I'll post the Attorney General's letter to me in a few days.

This is truly a sad day for the citizens of San Antonio and Bexar
County. Our officials here have clearly indicated that fear drives much
of their decision making processes, and that a lack of the public's
involvement in the public safety process is the policy to maintain.

They have effectively shut down and locked out public safety's most
ardent supporters, who, ironically, they characterize as "jammers" and
"hackers."

Lindsay C. Blanton
Webmaster - www.radioreference.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can read the Attorney General's Open Records Decision at the
following link:

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/orl50abbott/orl2004/or043066.htm
_________________
Lindsay C. Blanton
Webmaster - www.radioreference.com
=======================================================================

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

April 15, 2004

Mr. Jonathan Kaplan
Assistant City Attorney
City of San Antonio
P.O. Box 839966
San Antonio, Texas 78283-3966

OR2004-3066

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public
disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was
assigned ID# 199351. Bexar County (the "county") also received a request
for the identical records. The county sought a ruling from this office
which was assigned ID# 200043.  You now indicate that the City of San
Antonio is requesting a ruling on behalf of both entities. Accordingly,
we have combined these files and will consider the issues presented in
this single ruling assigned ID# 199351.

The City of San Antonio (the "city") received a request for records
pertaining to the City of San Antonio/Bexar County Public Safety Radio
System (the "system"). Specifically, the requestor seeks the following
information:
1. a work breakdown for the deployment of the system, outlining cut-over
and implementation dates;
2. the request for proposals and responses from MA/COM, Dailey Wells,
and any other associated vendors;
3. the official contract between MA/COM, Dailey Wells, and any other
associated vendors;
4. the documentation related to the decision only to utilize EDACS
System Key (ESK);
5. the frequency assignments for each site location, including EDACS
logical channel order (LCN);
6. the documentation outlining talkgroup assignments for users of the
system;
7. the training manuals and reference information provided to users of
the system;
8. the media access policy;
9. the citizen access policy; and
10. any and all documents related to the implementation of the system
that does not match the above criteria.

You state that information responsive to items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 will be
released. You also state that documents responsive to items 4 and 5 do
not exist.(1) See Economic Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562
S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Open Records
Decision No. 452 at 3 (1986) (stating that governmental body is not
required to disclose information that did not exist at time request was
received). You further state that the requestor subsequently withdrew
his request for information responsive to item 10. You claim, however,
that information responsive to items 1 and 6 of the request are excepted
from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.108 of the Government
Code. We have considered your claimed exceptions and have reviewed the
submitted sample records.(2) We have also considered the comments
submitted by the United States Department of Justice. See Gov't Code §
552.304 (providing that interested party may submit comments explaining
why requested information should or should not be released).

Section 552.108(b)(1) of the Government Code excepts from disclosure the
internal records and notations of law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors when their release would interfere with law enforcement and
crime prevention. Open Records Decision No. 531 at 2 (1989) (quoting Ex
parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex. 1977)). To demonstrate the
applicability of this exception, a governmental body must meet its
burden of explaining how and why release of the requested information
would interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention. Open Records
Decision No. 562 at 10 (1990). This office has concluded that section
552.108(b) excepts from public disclosure information relating to the
security or operation of a law enforcement agency.  See, e.g., Open
Records Decision Nos. 531 (1989) (release of detailed use of force
guidelines would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 456 (1987)
(release of forms containing information regarding location of off-duty
police officers in advance would unduly interfere with law enforcement),
413 (1984) (release of sketch showing security measures to be used at
next execution would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 409 (1984)
(if information regarding certain burglaries exhibit a pattern that
reveals investigative techniques, information is excepted under Gov't
Code § 552.108), 341 (1982) (release of certain information from Texas
Department of Public Safety would unduly interfere with law enforcement
because release would hamper departmental efforts to detect forgeries of
drivers' licenses), 252 (1980) (Gov't Code § 552.108 is designed to
protect investigative techniques and procedures used in law
enforcement), 143 (1976) (disclosure of specific operations or
specialized equipment directly related to investigation or detection of
crime may be excepted).  Generally known policies and techniques,
however, may not be withheld under section 552.108. See, e.g., Open
Records Decision Nos. 531 at 2-3 (1989) (Penal Code provisions, common
law rules, and constitutional limitations on use of force are not
protected under Gov't Code § 552.108), 252 at 3 (1980) (governmental
body did not meet burden because it did not indicate why investigative
procedures and techniques requested were any different from those
commonly known).
You explain that the system will provide end-to-end digital
communications (encrypted and non-encrypted) for various city
departments, including police, fire and emergency medical services. In
addition, the county Sheriff's Office and several federal law
enforcement agencies will use the system. You state that the system will
be implemented in phases, with departments going online at different
times. You also state that once the system is completely functional, it
will be extremely difficult for someone to "hack" into it. You assert,
however, that if the requested information is released, a person could
effectively "hack" into the system. You claim that the "hackers" would
then have access to personnel deployment information and other vital law
enforcement information. You also advise that, in addition to being able
to listen to critical law enforcement information, the "hackers" would
have the ability to "jam" the system thereby crippling emergency
services. Based on your representations and our review of the submitted
information, we conclude that the city has demonstrated that the release
of information responsive to items 1 and 6 of the request will interfere
with law enforcement.  Accordingly, information responsive to items 1
and 6 of the request may be withheld from disclosure under section
552.108(b)(1).(3)

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 Dep't
of Pub.  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.
Sincerely,

June B. Harden
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
JHB/seg
Ref: ID# 199351
Enc: Submitted documents

c: Mr. Lindsay C. Blanton, III
PMB #133
18160 US Highway 281 North, Suite 108
San Antonio, Texas 78232
(w/o enclosures)

Ms. Patricia G. Prowse
Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County - Civil Section
300 Dolorosa, Suite 4049
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030
(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes
1. Because you state that information responsive to item 5 does not
exist, we need not address your contention that this information is not
public information as defined by section 552.002 of the Government Code.

2. We assume that the sample records submitted to this office are truly
representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records
Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not
reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other
requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially
different types of information than that submitted to this office.

3. Because we are able to make a determination under section 552.108, we
need not address your additional arguments against disclosure.

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:
WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/