The state's open meetings laws make motor vehicle records accessible to the public.
But a recent federal law - the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) - limits the release of personal information from those same records.
So which rule should law enforcement authorities in the state follow?
Release the information, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said in an opinion released Tuesday. Van Hollen has sided with openness, which is the right stance to take on this question.
"What the attorney general seems to have said is that the act does not trump the expectation of openness at the core of the public records law," said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
A group of newspapers requested Van Hollen's opinion after they'd had run-ins with municipalities that had used the DPPA to justify redacting information in police records, ranging from names to addresses. Van Hollen said that by not releasing such information, police departments are not fulfilling their public records function - leaving a negative impact on public oversight of and confidence in law enforcement.
It is important to note that the Times has not run into any resistance with local departments on the matter. Monroe Police Chief Fred Kelley says he has continued to give the information in question to newspapers in spite of the federal law - because he's felt it's the right thing to do. That's encouraging.
Kelley said he treats information requests from law firms differently, however, to make sure lawyers aren't trolling through records for clients. Unless a firm has a letter on file saying information it requests could be used in litigation, Kelley doesn't release the information.
The federal law was intended to protect information from motor vehicle reports to be obtained for criminal purposes. That the availability of public information was jeopardized was an unfortunate side-effect of the law. Van Hollen's opinion should clear up the confusion, if law enforcement agencies follow his advice.
Van Hollen did say the federal law protects some information from being released, such as driver's photographs, Social Security numbers, and medical and disability information. That's sensible.
But preventing the release of simple information that helps inform the public would not promote openness. Thankfully, Van Hollen weighed in favor of the state's open records law, which states the public is entitled to the greatest possible information about government.
But a recent federal law - the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) - limits the release of personal information from those same records.
So which rule should law enforcement authorities in the state follow?
Release the information, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said in an opinion released Tuesday. Van Hollen has sided with openness, which is the right stance to take on this question.
"What the attorney general seems to have said is that the act does not trump the expectation of openness at the core of the public records law," said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
A group of newspapers requested Van Hollen's opinion after they'd had run-ins with municipalities that had used the DPPA to justify redacting information in police records, ranging from names to addresses. Van Hollen said that by not releasing such information, police departments are not fulfilling their public records function - leaving a negative impact on public oversight of and confidence in law enforcement.
It is important to note that the Times has not run into any resistance with local departments on the matter. Monroe Police Chief Fred Kelley says he has continued to give the information in question to newspapers in spite of the federal law - because he's felt it's the right thing to do. That's encouraging.
Kelley said he treats information requests from law firms differently, however, to make sure lawyers aren't trolling through records for clients. Unless a firm has a letter on file saying information it requests could be used in litigation, Kelley doesn't release the information.
The federal law was intended to protect information from motor vehicle reports to be obtained for criminal purposes. That the availability of public information was jeopardized was an unfortunate side-effect of the law. Van Hollen's opinion should clear up the confusion, if law enforcement agencies follow his advice.
Van Hollen did say the federal law protects some information from being released, such as driver's photographs, Social Security numbers, and medical and disability information. That's sensible.
But preventing the release of simple information that helps inform the public would not promote openness. Thankfully, Van Hollen weighed in favor of the state's open records law, which states the public is entitled to the greatest possible information about government.
