Chapter 8
Access to Government Information in the Computer Age
Copyright © 1997 Sandra Davidson & Robert Anderson(Last update: 1997)
By Sandra Davidson
(with an Appendix by Robert Anderson)
Associate Professor of Journalism
University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism
120 Ness Hall
Columbia, Missouri 605211
Telephone: (573) 884-4821
Facsimile: (573) 884-5400
Increasingly, government records are being kept in government computers. It has been a challenge for law to keep up with technology.1 The state of Missouri has fared fairly well as compared to other states and the federal government, although the need to update statutory provisions remains.2
Missouri's "Sunshine Law"3 contains four statutory provisions that explicitly refer to, or are particularly relevant to, government records stored electronically:
Missouri's definition of "Public records" explicitly includes computerized records:
610.010(6) "Public records, any record, whether written or electronically stored, retained by or of any public governmental body. . . ."
Missouri mandates redaction. Redaction is an issue only when records contain both public and restricted information. When redaction occurs, restricted information is excised from a record and the remaining information is released. Without redaction, a whole record might be withheld. Missouri also mandates that custodians of records keep their records in a form that can be easily redacted. For instance, computerized records could be kept with all restricted information in particular fields.
610.024. Public record containing exempt and nonexempt materials, nonexempt to be made available -- deleted exempt materials to be explained, exception.
1. If a public record contains material which is not exempt from disclosure as well as material which is exempt from disclosure, the public governmental body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and make the nonexempt material available for examination and copying.
2. When designing a public record, a public governmental body shall, to the extent practicable, facilitate a separation of exempt from nonexempt information. If the separation is readily apparent to a person requesting to inspect or receive copies of the form, the public governmental body shall generally describe the material exempted unless that description would reveal the contents of the exempt information and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption.
Missouri generally limits costs of computerized records to actual duplication and search costs, with a reduction or waiver for journalists and others working in the public interest.
610.026. Fees for copying public records, limitations--fee money remitted to whom--tax, license or fee as used in Missouri Constitution Article X section 22 not to include copying fees.
1. Each public governmental body may prescribe reasonable fees for providing access to or furnishing copies of public records subject to the following:
(1) Fees for copying public records shall not exceed the actual cost of document search and duplication. Documents may be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge when the public governmental body determines that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the public governmental body and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester;
(2) Fees for providing access to public records maintained on computer facilities, recording tapes or discs, video tapes or films, pictures, slides, graphics, illustrations or similar audio or visual items or devices, shall include only the cost of copies and staff time required for making copies.
Missouri encourages its agencies to provide online access to the public. Of course, online access can be the fastest, easiest form of access. In a cautionary mode, however, the law also requires that contracts for online access protect the information stored electronically. "Read only" access should accomplish this goal. Also, the law requires that such contracts limit agencies' liability, although the possible types of liability are not spelled out in the statutes. The law also gently encourages custodians of records to avail themselves of the expertise contained in the Division of Data Processing and Telecommunications.
610.029. Governmental agencies to provide information by electronic services, electronic services defined -- division of data processing may be consulted.
1. A public governmental body may provide electronic services involving public records to members of the public. A public governmental body is encouraged to make information available in usable electronic formats to the greatest extent feasible. The activities authorized under this section may not take priority over the primary responsibilities of a public governmental body. For purposes of this section the term "electronic services" means on-line access or access via other electronic means to an electronic file or data base.
2. Public governmental bodies shall include in a contract for electronic services provisions that:
(1) Protect the security and integrity of the information system of the public governmental body and of information systems that are shared by public governmental bodies; and
(2) Limit the liability of the public governmental body providing the services.
3. Each public governmental body may consult with the division of data processing and telecommunications of the office of administration to develop the electronic services offered by the public governmental body to the public under this section.
Access under the Federal E-FOIA
On September 6, 1996, federal access laws stepped into the computer age with passage of the "Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996" (E-FOIA).
Arguably, the revisions were long overdue. The original Freedom of Information Act passed in 1966, when agencies kept records on paper. But, increasingly, government records are being stored in computers. In part, this is a result of the Paperwork Reduction Act, passed by Congress in 1980.4 This Act directed agencies to cut down on costs by computerizing records wherever possible. However, the 1966 FOIA's definition of what constitutes a government agency "record" did not even mention electronic records. The Justice Department in 1990 released a survey of 96 federal agencies. Thirteen did not respond. Of those that did respond, over half--53%--did not think they had to use their computers to search for information sought under the Freedom of Information Act.5 And even the Supreme Court showed its mistrust of providing information synthesized in a readily available form.6
Following are some highlights of E-FOIA. E-FOI:
Clearly covers computerized records: "Each agency ... shall make available for public inspection and copying ... all records, regardless of form or format. . . ."7
Mandates electronic access:
For records created on or after November 1, 1996, within one year after such date, each agency shall make such records available, including by computer telecommunications or, if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means.8
Provides for tailoring:
[A]n agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.9
Mandates searching of electronic records:
[A]n agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system.10
Generally limits costs of computerized records to actual duplication, search, and review costs, with a reduction or waiver for journalists and others working in the public interest:
Documents shall be furnished without any charge or at a [reduced] charge . . . if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.11
Fee schedules shall provide for the recovery of only the direct costs of search, duplication, or review. Review costs shall include only the direct costs incurred during the initial examination of a document for the purposes of determining whether the documents must be disclosed under this section and for the purposes of withholding any portions exempt from disclosure under this section.12
Mandates redaction:
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. . . .13
Requires indexing:
The head of each agency shall prepare and make publicly available upon request, reference material or a guide for requesting records or information from the agency, . . . including--
(1) an index of all major information systems of the agency;
(2) a description of major information and record locator systems maintained by the agency; and
(3) a handbook for obtaining various types and categories of public information from the agency. . .14
Agencies must also make detailed reports to the Attorney General of the United States that include the number of denials by the agency, the statutes invoked for denial, the "scope" of information that was upheld, and the number and results of appeals of denials.15 The agencies must also make the report available to the public by "computer telecommunications means" or "other electronic means."16 And the Attorney General "shall make each report which has been made available by electronic means available at a single electronic access point."17 In addition, the Attorney General must make an annual report that includes a "description" of Department of Justice efforts to "encourage agency compliance" with the reporting requirement. Agency reports will also go to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, who will refer the reports to appropriate Congressional committees.18
Effective October 2, 1997, in order to ensure "timely response to requests," E-FOIA will permit but not require "multitrack processing of requests ... based on the amount of work or time (or both) involved in processing requests." Also, the agencies may permit requesters to submit a request that is more limited in scope if the original request would not qualify for the fastest processing.19 But agencies must have "expedited processing" for a requester who "demonstrates a compelling need."20
Driver's License Records
All it takes is one bad incident for information to be restricted. The murder of 21-year-old actress Rebecca Schaeffer, costar of the television series "My Sister Sam," is a case in point. She died in Los Angeles on July 18, 1989, when she answered a knock at her apartment door and a deranged admirer, 19-year-old Robert Bardo, shot her in the chest.
Bardo, who lived in Tucson, Arizona, had paid $250 to a Tucson private investigating firm to get Schaeffer's address. The firm got her address from driver's license records in California--public records available at the time to anyone virtually on demand. The requester did have to fill out a form that asked the reason for the request, but only addresses of judges and peace officers were automatically restricted by law.21
A furor followed Schaeffer's death. The Los Angeles Times quoted California legislator Mike Roos as saying, "Tragically, government records have become the personal research archives of thieves, kooks and killers. The fact is we are all sitting ducks for any criminal or kook who wants to track us down."22 On October 1, 1989, California's governor approved legislation sponsored by Roos saying that residential addresses maintained by Department of Motor Vehicle records are "confidential."23
California Senator Barbara Boxer sponsored the "Boxer Bill," also known as the "Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994," which Congress passed on September 13, 1994.24 The law says: "Except as provided . . ., a State department of motor vehicles . . . shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record."25 The law defines "personal information" as "information that identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver's status."26
The federal law presents a laundry list of exemptions that it tags as "permissible uses"27 such as for "research activities," for notifying owners their vehicles have been towed, for "permitted" purposes by "any licensed private investigative agency," and for surveys and solicitations of persons not availing themselves of the opportunity to restrict their personal information.28
The law also includes an opt-out provision allowing states until September 13, 1997, to enact their own statutes "prohibiting disclosures or uses of personal information," so long as the state law meets the following requirements of federal law:29
Personal information . . . may be disclosed as follows: . . .
(11) For any other use in response to requests for individual motor vehicle records if the motor vehicle department has provided in a clear and conspicuous manner on forms for issuance or renewal of operator's permits, titles, registrations, or identification cards, notice that personal information collected by the department may be disclosed to any business or person, and has provided in a clear and conspicuous manner on such forms an opportunity to prohibit such disclosures.
(12) For bulk distribution for surveys, marketing or solicitations if the motor vehicle department has implemented methods and procedures to ensure that--
(A) individuals are provided an opportunity, in a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit such uses; and
(B) the information will be used, rented, or sold solely for bulk distribution for surveys, marketing, and solicitations, and that surveys, marketing, and solicitations will not be directed at those individuals who have requested in a timely fashion that they not be directed at them.30
Missouri opted out in the summer of 1997.31 The Missouri statute adopted: (1) the federal definition of "personal information"; (2) the federal mandatory language of "clear and conspicuous" notice to persons renewing titles and licenses that their personal information may be disclosed but that they can prohibit that disclosure; and (3) the assurance that the Department of Revenue will not sell in bulk the personal information of persons who have "notified the department in a timely manner" that they do not want their personal information sold for surveys and solicitations.32
But the whole tone of the Missouri law is in stark contrast to that of the federal law concerning motor vehicle records. While the federal law is couched in negative terms of "shall not knowingly disclose" with a list of exceptions where information may be disclosed,33 the Missouri law is worded in positive terms. The Missouri law declares that "all records of the Department of Revenue are public records and shall be made available to the public. . . ."34 This language is followed by the declaration, "Except as otherwise provided by law, personal information obtained by the department shall be disclosed to any person requesting such personal information if the individual whose personal information is requested has not elected to prohibit the disclosure of such personal information. . . ."35 Positive language followed by exceptions is the model presented by Missouri's "Sunshine Law" (Chapter 610, RSMo). There are, however, no exceptions to release of information in the 1997 law concerning motor vehicle records other than individuals' choice of prohibiting release of their information.
The final words in Missouri's law are stated "pursuant to" the federal law which authorizes "any other use specifically authorized under the law of the State that holds the record, if such use is related to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety:"36
[A]ny person who has a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, magazine, broadcast or other similar form of public communication, including dissemination by computer or other electronic means, may request the department to provide individual or bulk motor vehicle records, such dissemination being related to the operation of a motor vehicle or to public safety. Upon receipt of such request, the department shall release the requested motor vehicle records. It is the public policy of this state that records be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. The disclosure provisions of this section shall be liberally construed and the exemptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.37
Appendix
Online Access
For Internet Legal Resources, see "FINDLAW" at http://www.findlaw.com.
The following information comes from Robert Anderson, the webmaster for the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri, 127 Neff Annex, 65211. E-mail: Robert_Anderson@jmail.jour. missouri.edu. URL: http://www.missouri.edu/~foiwww.
In 1998, the FOI Center will celebrate its fortieth anniversary.
The posting of public records on the Internet by state and federal agencies is in an embryonic stage--most of these agencies are still chary about sharing their records, or, records that have any real significance. The recent amendments to the Federal FOI laws may change this situation, at least at the federal level.
In the meantime, some agencies--and even private companies--have put up documents and databases that are worthwhile. Some of them have very real surprises.
1. Business Information
Many SEC filings are in the Edgar database at http://www.sec.gov/edgarhp.htm. The SEC requires that companies electronically file their 10-Ks and quarterly reports (except in hardship cases). Third parties with interest in these companies must file tender offers and Schedules 13D. The documents are posted on the website within 24 hours of their receipt.
Not all business filings are on Edgar website. According to the SEC "Forms 3, 4, and 5 (security ownership and transaction reports filed by corporate insiders), Form 144 (notice of proposed sale of securities) and Form 13F (reports filed by institutional investment managers showing equity holdings by accounts under their management) may be filed on EDGAR at the option of the filer. Similarly, filings by foreign companies are not required to be filed on EDGAR, but some of these companies do so voluntarily."
On its search page for Edgar, the SEC gives helpful hints on how to extract compensation for executives from a proxy filing (DEF 14A).
Some states put incorporation records on the internet, including Missouri, which posts at http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/bus-ser/corpdata.html. Missouri officials promise that the final version of the filing will have "all relevant information from the secretary of state's office corporate database.
UCC filings can be gotten through a number of commercial providers (which is to say, that there is no free lunch in cyberspace) on the web; but New Mexico state officials have a searchable database of that state's filing at http://web.state.nm.us/UCC/UCCSRCH.htm.
2. Court Records
The public does not yet have a way to view criminal and civil records on the net. Only one circuit clerk in the U.S. has said that it is his intention to put such records at his department's website, http://www.courtbar.org.
But the public has plenty of access to court rulings, both at the federal and local level. Here are some of the sites:
The LII (Legal Information Institute) and Hermes Project at the University of Cornell Law School offers full-text of the most current Supreme Court Decisions, in fact all of the decisions issued since 1990. This site has links to other Supreme Court Sites, including the Air Force's FLITE site, which contains full Supreme Court Decisions from 1937-1975. (Go to http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct for LII/Hermes; go to http://www.fedworld.gov./supcourt/ index.htm for the FLITE database.
Law Journal Extra! Has a searchable full-text database of all decisions from U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal since 1994. Go to http://search.ljx.com.
Most states have some form of online access to decisions and even the dockets of state courts. The Villanova Center for Information Law and Policy has put together a thorough listing of these courts with links to their web pages at http://wwwlaw.vill.edu/StateCt./index.html.
3. Medical, Science Records
Such records abound on the Internet, but at least one federal medical database was, until recently, available only to paid subscribers.
In June, the National Library of Medicine started free access to its Medline database, which contains more than 8.8 million references to articles in biomedical journals. The NLM, part of the National Institutes of Health, promises that other such databases will soon be available free-of-charge to the public.
The NLM boasts that use of Medline has contributed to groundbreaking discoveries in science. One Virginia couple searched the database and found information on a cure for their son's inherited disease--a story that became the basis for the film "Lorenzo's Oil."
The Medline Database is at http://www.nlm.nih.gov.
4. Physicians' Records
Some states allow verification of physician's licenses and histories online. Arizona, Texas, California, Iowa, Massachusetts and North Carolina link to the Association of State Medical Board Directors homepage at http://www.docboard.org/doc_find/doc_find.htm.
New York State also has a monthly alphabetical listing of disciplinary actions against physicians going back to 1995. Here's a typical entry: This physician did not contest charges of practicing the profession with negligence on more than one occasion, ordering excessive tests and/or treatment not warranted by the condition of the patients and failure to maintain accurate records. You can find other less-than-qualified New York physicians at http://www.health. state.ny.us/nysdoh/opmc/drmain.html.
5. The Federal Government
Every agency has its own website now. In fact most agencies have multiple websites. According to Govbot (http://cobar.cs.umass.edu/ciirdemo/Govbot) a service that tracks these websites, the number of federal sites is more than 300,000. So how can you find anything m this proliferating electronic bureaucracy?
First, try GILS (Government Information Locator Service) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/ su_docs/whatgils.html. The GILS site, maintained by the General Printing Office, gives access to publicly available government resources, including those produced by the GPO. Special pointers provide overall information on systems such as the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency and the General Services Administration.
GILS also can search through the Government Printing Office, U.S. Congress and Federal Register databases.
As alternatives, try these resources:
Govbot (http://cobar.cs.umass.edu/ciirdemo/Govbot).
The Thomas database (http://thomas.loc.gov), the search engine for enacted and pending legislation in Congress.
The Library of Congress page (http://www.loc.gov) has links to government information.
The General Accounting Office homepage (http://www.gao.gov), has numerous audit reports and inspections of federal agencies.
6. Environment/Health
The EPA has its long-standing Toxic Release Inventory, the federal reporting system of chemicals in the environment, which can be accessed via GILS or the EPA site (http://www.epa.gov).
One non-profit organization, the Right To Know Network (http://www.rtk.net) has numerous databases dealing with the amounts and types of industry pollution in every community in the nation. The databases also contain details about government lawsuits against individual polluters. Membership to RTK is required -- but all of the information is free to access and download.
Another agency that provides online health and environmental data is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the U.S. Public Health Department. At one of the online databases, Hazdat (http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/hazdat.html) you can search state-by-state for leaks of the 275 chemicals the federal government recognizes as hazardous. ATSDR even provides a mouse-sensitive U.S. map that you can click on.
7. Statistics
Fedstats is a one-stop website for federal stats on crime, health, welfare and other government statistics at http://www.fedstats.gov. One of the documents that you could locate would be the FBI's annual statistics on crime.
An old standby, the U.S. Census, has online information at http://www.census.gov, which has both free information and a new premium subscription service.
8. Copyright, Patents
Want to find out if you have an original thought in your head? Check out the Library of Congress' home page at http://lcweb.loc.gov and search Copyright records via telnet connection through your browser -- or telnet directly to telnet://locis.loc.gov. The online searchable records date back to 1978.
9. Investigative Reports
In a federal agency, no one knows better than its inspector general what's going right and wrong -- with the agency. Now, those inspector generals have their own home page at Ignet (http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/ignet). The site contains audit investigations and other reports from IGs at the departments of Health, Energy and HUD. In addition, the IGs at the FCC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Election Commission have placed their reports here.
10. Campaign Finance
For federal campaign races and PACs, you can go to the Federal Election Commission's site at http://www.fec.gov -- and spend time converting raw data into something readable by a database program.
However the American University Campaign Finance Data Site at http://www.soc.american. edu/campfin already has this information broken down by party, state and even by candidate in easy-to-download *.dbf format files. Also see Project Vote Smart (http://www.vote-smart.org/) for good generalized information for individual politicians (the site has a nifty zip code locator that automatically brings up the people who represent you.).
Some nice state campaign finance sites with databases include Hawaii (http://election.sdr. com/hi96) and Florida (http://election.dos.state.fl.us/campfin/contrib.htm). Maryland, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, Indiana and California also are in various stages of bringing campaign finance data to the Internet.
11. Transportation Safety
The FAA, despite tragic consequences of its own inability to police airlines, has at least given the public the raw data to figure out which airlines have the safest flight records. Visit the FAA's flight safety database at http://nasdoc.faa.gov.internet. The purpose of the site is to provide "public access to four aviation safety databases and airline activity data that can be used to calculate individual accident and incident rates for major airlines," according to the FAA site.
Among the data are FAA incident reports, NTSB accident reports and a Mid-Air Collision database, which records in minutiae which airlines have had near mid-air collisions (in which aircraft have passed within 100 feet of each other).
12. Banking Records
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has a site devoted to comparison records of banking institutions at http://192.147.69.47/DRS/id20. According to the description from the FDIC, the agency's "Institution Directory (ID) system provides demographic data and financial profiles derived from quarterly reports filed with Federal regulators for each FDIC-insured institution. The ID system can be used to identify and list FDIC-insured institutions, and compare individual bank performance and condition ratios with statistics published in the Quarterly Ranking Profile. This information can easily be printed or downloaded into spreadsheets."
13. Defense Formation
You can enter the nexus for the Defense community at http://www.dtic.mil/defenselink which has links to all the Armed Services homepages as well as specialized organizations, such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Year 2000 Commission.
The Defense Department's own web site is operated by DTIC, the Defense Technical Information Center (http://www.dtic.mil), which manages DoD research, development and technical information. A portion of DTIC's online databases contain unclassified documents open to the public. DTIC offers a registration-only database, which contains more sensitive information -- after all, DTIC is geared toward weapons technology. To qualify for registration, you need to be a contractor or potential contractor with Defense or belong to a University that does federally funded research.
The Defense sites most revealing documents are located at Gulflink, (http://www.gulflink. osd.mil) which the department was pressured to put up following charges that Persian Gulf veterans were exposed to chemical weapons. The site contains declassified Army reports and documents, many of them originally obtained under the FOIA. Some of the most current declassified documents (6/97) include reports on the Army's use of depleted uranium shells in the Gulf and the likelihood that soldiers became sick because of the shells.
14. FOIA Records
The Electronic Freedom of Information Amendments requires that each agency give online access to a complete index of frequency requested records under the FOIA by Dec. 31, 1999. While the public is waiting for that index, the agencies have to show that they are at least working on a system and post an online index of frequently requested records released after Nov. 1, 1996 - as well as the documents themselves (The law said nothing about posting online records of information released before Nov. 1, 1996.).
Some agencies have said that their requirements will be met through the GILS system -- meaning that what you see is what you get after you've performed a GILS search for FOIA information.
But the GILS system doesn't seem to fit the mandates of EFOIA, because a simple search may turn up relevant documents that are buried in a mass of nonrelevant items. The law states that an agency or department must post a general index of these released documents.
One of the few government agencies that are posting FOIA documents on their web pages -- and clearly stating the EFOIA mandates behind their posting -- is the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/foipa/ foipa.htm).
But the FBI has not yet posted any bombshells. The posted documents deal with Klaus Barbie, Amelia Earhart and Elvis Presley -- pretty old stuff. More discouragingly, the FBI states that it has not released documents recently that fit the "frequently requested or likely to be requested" mandates of the EFOIA. (One wonders how you would categorize requests for documents about Richard Jewell and the Atlanta bombings, or Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.)
But there are a few more months until the FBI and other federal agencies have to meet the initial requirements of posting on the web. And to the FBI's credit, it is one of the few federal bureaucracies that has even made a stab at starting online posting of FOIA documents.
1. For articles on law's difficulty in keeping up with technology, see, e.g., Sandra Davidson Scott, "Statutory Language for a Model Statute for Access to Government Records," 2 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 29 (Spring 1993) and Mark Sableman, "Newtech Reporters Confront Old Fashioned Access Barriers," St. Louis Journalism Review 15 (Oct. 1990).
2. For instance, Missouri needs a good "tailoring" statute, which the federal statutes now has. See infra note 9 and accompanying text.
3. Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 610 (current through August 1997).
4. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (P.L. 96-511); amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13).
5. Mitchell Hartman, "Investigative reporters use databases to break stories," The Quill (November/December 1990), p. 21. See also "OIP Releases Results of Electronic Records Survey," Access Reports: Freedom of Information (November 14, 1990), pp. 1-5.
6. In United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that FBI rap sheets, which are computerized, cannot be given out because to do so would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. " The Court said, "Plainly there is a vast difference between the public records that might be found after a diligent search of courthouse files, county archives, and local police stations throughout the county and a computerized summary located in a single clearing house of information." Id. at 764. The Court could have ordered redaction, releasing some portions and restricting others, but instead prohibited release of the entire rap sheet.
7. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D).
8. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(E).
9. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B).
10. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(c). "For purposes of this paragraph, the term "search" means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(D).
11. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
12. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iv). For more regulations on fees, see in its entirety 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A).
13. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9).
14. 5 U.S.C. § 552(g). See also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(E).
15. 5 U.S.C. § 552(e)(1)(A) & (b). For more about reporting requirements, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(e)(1) generally.
16. 5 U.S.C. § 552(e)(2).
17. 5 U.S.C. § 552(e)(3).
18. 5 U.S.C. § 552(e)(5).
19. See § 7(a) of the "Prospective amendment" section under the "History; Ancillary Laws and Directives" of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1997). The language is "may" instead of "shall."
20. See § 8(a)(i) of the "Prospective amendment" section under the "History; Ancillary Laws and Directives" of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1997). The language is "shall."
21. Robert Welkos, "Public Records Led Suspect to Actress-Victim," Los Angeles Times, Home Edition, July 22, 1989, p. 1, col. 3.
22. Jerry Gillam, "Senate Panel Favors Curbs on Public Use of DMV DATA," Los Angeles Times, Home Edition, August 30, 1989, p. 3, col. 5.
23. California ALS 1213, § 1 (1989).
24. Pub.L. 103-322, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721, et seq.
25. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a).
26. 18 U.S.C. § 2725(3).
27. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b).
28. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(5),(7),(8), & (12).
29. The opt-out provision (which is part of P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2102) appears under the "History, Ancillary Laws and Directives" following 18 U.S.C. § 2721.
The federal law calls for stiff penalties for states that are in noncompliance: "Any State department of motor vehicles that has a policy or practice of substantial noncompliance with this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2721, et seq.] shall be subject to a civil penalty imposed by the Attorney General of not more than $5,000 a day for each day of substantial noncompliance." 18 U.S.C. § 2723.
In addition, federal law permits persons whose "personal information" has been impermissibly disclosed to bring a civil suit and collect no less than $2,500 in liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and reasonable costs. 18 U.S.C. § 2724. To "knowingly . . . obtain or disclose personal information, from a motor vehicle record," for an impermissible use, or to make a "false representation" to gain such information, is also a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2722.
30. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b) (11) & (12).
31. Missouri's legislature enacted a June 12, 1997 version of Senate Bill 19. The law replaces the old § 32.055, RSMo. The new law becomes effective on September 13, 1997. Section 32.055(B), RSMo. This is the same date the federal law would otherwise become effective.
32. Section 32.055.2(3), and § 32.055.2(3)2 & 3, RSMo.
33. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a) & (b).
34. Section 32.055.1.2, RSMo.
35. Section 32.055.1.3, RSMo.
36. 18 U.S.C § 2721(b)(l4).
37. Section 32.055.2.4. The last two lines, beginning "it is the public policy . . .," come from § 610.011.1, RSMo.