Hacker Chronicles 2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Hacker Chronicles 2 / HACKER2.BIN / 808.MD2.TXT < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-11-07 | 73KB | 1,768 lines

The following information is brught to you by FATHERNET BBS (718)494-1719 PCBoard 15.0 USR-DS 16.8K Make 1st call *after* 8 PM Eastern because there's immediate callback verification. We would appreciate it if you would help keep our legal system free of corruption and upload one of the following: Maryland Divorce/Custody/Child Support Statutes and the leading cases cncerning those. Maryland's Rules of Civil Procedure Evidence Pleading Forms It will help others to help themselves. ******************************************************************** Maryland STATE GOVERNMENT TITLE 10. GOVERNMENTAL PROCEDURES SUBTITLE 6. RECORDS PART III. ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS @ 10-611. Definitions (a) In general. -- In this Part III of this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated. (b) Applicant. -- "Applicant" means a person or governmental unit that asks to inspect a public record. (c) Custodian. -- "Custodian" means: (1) the official custodian; or (2) any other authorized individual who has physical custody and control of a public record. (d) Official custodian. -- "Official custodian" means an officer or employee of the State or of a political subdivision who, whether or not the officer or employee has physical custody and control of a public record, is responsible for keeping the public record. (e) Person in interest. -- "Person in interest" means: (1) a person or governmental unit that is the subject of a public record or a designee of the person or governmental unit; (2) if the person has a legal disability, the parent or legal representative of the person; or (3) as to requests for correction of certificates of death under @ 5-310 (d) (2) of the Health-General Article, the spouse, adult child, parent, adult sibling, grandparent, or guardian of the person of the deceased at the time of the deceased's death. (f) Public record. -- (1) "Public record" means the original or any copy of any documentary material that: (i) is made by a unit or instrumentality of the State government or of a political subdivision or received by the unit or instrumentality in connection with the transaction of public business; and (ii) is in any form, including: 1. a card; 2. a computerized record; 3. correspondence; 4. a drawing; 5. film or microfilm; 6. a form; 7. a map; 8. a photograph or photostat; 9. a recording; or 10. a tape. (2) "Public record" includes a document that lists the salary of an employee of a unit or instrumentality of the State government or of a political subdivision. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 1; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; ch. 285, @ 8; 1992, ch. 547. NOTES: EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --The 1992 amendment, effective Jan. 1, 1993, added (e) (3). EDITOR'S NOTE. --Section 2, ch. 547, Acts 1992, provides that "the Chief Medical Examiner, in consultation with the Office of Administrative Hearings, shall adopt final regulations for the purpose of implementing this Act, to be effective January 1, 1993." Section 3 of ch. 547 provides that "this Act shall be construed retroactively and shall be applied to and interpreted to affect all certificates of death for individuals who died on or after May 1, 1987. Notwithstanding the restrictions of @ 5-310 (d) (2) (i) of the Health-General Article as enacted by @ 1 of this Act, persons in interest may request corrections to certificates of death for individuals who died on or after May 1, 1987, by filing a request with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner no later than June 30, 1993." MARYLAND LAW REVIEW. --For article, "Survey of Developments in Maryland Law, 1983-84," see 44 Md. L. Rev. 281 (1985). For article, "Survey of Developments in Maryland Law, 1984-85," see 45 Md. L. Rev. 836, 916 (1986). UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). PERSON IN INTEREST. --Under this act, "person in interest" is a definitional term that means, "a person that is the subject of a public record or a designee of the person." Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). If a person seeking inspection of the records of a police department investigation is not a person in interest, and if the custodian believes that disclosure of the records of the police investigation is not in the public interest, the Public Information Act does not require disclosure. Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). Defendant political committee was not a person in interest in the context of @ 10-618 (f) (2) of this article. Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). OFFICIAL WHO OBTAINS PERSONNEL RECORDS IS "CUSTODIAN." --Once a public official obtained the personnel records of a former employee of the urban services agency through the use of his offices as comptroller and a member of the board of estimates, he became a "custodian," regardless of whether he could be considered an official who supervised the former employee's work. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 365 (1980). PUBLIC DEFENDER IS "OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN" OF TRIAL TRANSCRIPT obtained by the Public Defender's office in the course of its legal representation of an indigent defendant. 68 Op. Att'y Gen. 330 (1983). POLICE RECORDS MUST BE CONSIDERED "PUBLIC RECORDS." 57 Op. Att'y Gen. 518 (1972). "Arrest logs" are public records. 63 Op. Att'y Gen. 543 (1978). Police investigative report is a "public record" that is subject to disclosure to any person, including members of the press, unless refusal to disclose it is mandated or permitted by a statutory exception or otherwise by law. 64 Op. Att'y Gen. 236 (1979). A complaint filed with a law enforcement agency becomes a "public record" when it is memorialized in any form by the law enforcement agency. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). AND VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS open to public inspection are clearly "public records," and not privileged or made confidential by law. 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 396 (1977). AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE RECORDS. --The filing with a local board of education of the names and addresses of all pupils attending a school in a particular county would constitute a "public record." 59 Op. Att'y Gen. 586 (1974). AND PERSONNEL FILE OF URBAN SERVICES AGENCY. --The personnel file of a former employee of an urban services agency was a "public record," since all records in the file would have either been made or received by the urban services agency, a Baltimore City agency, in connection with the transaction of public business. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 365 (1980). AND TRIAL TRANSCRIPT is public record. 68 Op. Att'y Gen. 330 (1983). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). QUOTED IN Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 66 Md. App. 133, 502 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 306 Md. 289, 508 A.2d 488, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984, 107 S. Ct. 571, 93 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1986). CITED IN Epps v. Simms, 89 Md. App. 371, 598 A.2d 756 (1991). @ 10-612. General right to information (a) General right to information. -- All persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. (b) General construction. -- To carry out the right set forth in subsection (a) of this section, unless an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a person in interest would result, this Part III of this subtitle shall be construed in favor of permitting inspection of a public record, with the least cost and least delay to the person or governmental unit that requests the inspection. (c) General Assembly. -- This Part III of this subtitle does not preclude a member of the General Assembly from acquiring the names and addresses of and statistical information about individuals who are licensed or, as required by a law of the State, registered. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @@ 1A, 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). GENERAL CONSTRUCTION. --A public record must be disclosed upon request unless a provision of the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) or other law prohibits the custodian from disclosing the record, or a provision of the PIA or other law authorizes the custodian to refrain from disclosing it. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). RECORDINGS OF CALLS TO 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE under the Public Information Act except for medical or psychological information about an individual, for recordings of calls for police assistance where disclosure would be contrary to public interest and where a court order prevents disclosure. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 288 (1986). GENERAL RIGHT OF INSPECTION IS NOT LIMITED TO "PERSON AGGRIEVED" OR "PERSON IN INTEREST." Superintendent, Md. State Police v. Henschen, 279 Md. 468, 369 A.2d 558 (1977). INFORMATION RELATED TO AGENCY PERFORMANCE may be disclosed to the public in a case in which a child has died as a result of abuse and a parent or other person has been arrested on charges related to that abuse. In such a case, Social Security Administration may disclose: (1) Whether the child had ever been the subject of a report of suspected abuse; (2) the date on which any such report was received; (3) the dates on which the local department of social services initiated and completed its investigation into the validity of the report; and (4) the general nature of the department's investigation. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 368 (1986). DISCLOSURE OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CRIME VICTIMS. --A custodian of an investigatory record containing the name and address of a victim of crime would be required under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) to consider not only the privacy interests of the victim but also assertions about the public interest in disclosure that are made by the requester. In the end, the decision is left to the discretion of the custodian; notwithstanding the privacy interests at stake, the PIA does not forbid such disclosure. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). QUOTED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). @ 10-613. Inspection of public records (a) In general. -- Except as otherwise provided by law, a custodian shall permit a person or governmental unit to inspect any public record at any reasonable time. (b) Rules or regulations. -- To protect public records and to prevent unnecessary interference with official business, each official custodian shall adopt reasonable rules or regulations that, subject to this Part III of this subtitle, govern timely production and inspection of a public record. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 2; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). LEGISLATIVE INTENT. --It is the legislative intent of the General Assembly that citizens of the State of Maryland be accorded wide-ranging access to public information concerning the operation of their government. A.S. Abell Publishing Co. v. Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 464 A.2d 1068 (1983). RECORDINGS OF CALLS TO 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE under the Public Information Act except for medical or psychological information about an individual, for recordings of calls for police assistance where disclosure would be contrary to public interest and where a court order prevents disclosure. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 288 (1986). A COMPLAINT FILED WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY becomes a "public record" when it is memorialized in any form by the law enforcement agency. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). CLERK OF COURT MAY NOT DENY PUBLIC INSPECTION OF MARRIAGE RECORDS, no matter what their intended use. 61 Op. Att'y Gen. 702 (1976). RECORDS OF TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARDS. --The tax assessment appeal boards must records, except those specifically exempted. 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 712 (1977). TAXPAYERS' RIGHT TO RESTRICT INSPECTION. --Taxpayers have no right to prevent dissemination of information that the Public Information Act requires to be disclosed to the public, although they may challenge the determination as to the disclosability of particular information. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 318 (1986). RETAIL SALES TAX INFORMATION. --Federal and State statutes regarding the confidentiality of tax-related information prohibit disclosure of information concerning the personal and business affairs of identifiable taxpayers. However, (i) nonconfidential information about the taxpayer's plans to engage in certain regulated business activities or the taxpayer's authority to collect the retail sales tax and (ii) information that cannot be associated with any particular taxpayer must be disclosed to the public upon request. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 318 (1986). MONTHLY MILEAGE RECORDS FILED IN VEHICLE OFFICE OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT are available to the public under the Act. 60 Op. Att'y Gen. 498 (1975). INFORMATION RELATING TO LEGAL FEES PAID BY MARYLAND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FUND TO INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE COUNSEL engaged to represent the agency or its insured must be divulged, upon demand. 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 579 (1977). COST OF PROVIDING INFORMATION. --In complying with any request for disclosable information, the Retail Sales Tax Division may impose a reasonable charge for the costs incurred, including the cost of all computer time actually used. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 318 (1986). MARYLAND, VIRGINIA AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS COMPARED. --See C.T. Hellmuth & Assocs. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Auth., 414 F. Supp. 408 (D. Md. 1976). QUOTED IN Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 66 Md. App. 133, 502 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 306 Md. 289, 508 A.2d 488, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984, 107 S. Ct. 571, 93 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1986). @ 10-614. Applications (a) Required. -- (1) A person or governmental unit that wishes to inspect a public record shall submit a written application to the custodian. (2) If the individual to whom the application is submitted is not the custodian of the public record, within 10 working days after receiving the application, the individual shall give the applicant: (i) notice of that fact; and (ii) if known: 1. the name of the custodian; and 2. the location or possible location of the public record. (b) Grant or denial by custodian. -- (1) Within 30 days after receiving an application, the custodian shall grant or deny the application. (2) A custodian who approves the application shall produce the public record immediately or within the reasonable period that is needed to retrieve the public record, but not to exceed 30 days after receipt of the application. (3) A custodian who denies the application shall: (i) immediately notify the applicant; (ii) within 10 working days, give the applicant a written statement that gives: 1. the reasons for the denial; 2. the legal authority for the denial; and 3. notice of the remedies under this Part III of this subtitle for review of the denial; and (iii) permit inspection of any part of the record that is subject to inspection and is reasonably severable. (4) With the consent of the applicant, any time limit imposed under this subsection may be extended for not more than 30 days. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. IN GENERAL. --A public record must be disclosed upon request unless a provision of the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) or other law prohibits the custodian from disclosing the record, or a provision of the PIA or other law authorizes the custodian to refrain from disclosing it. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). WRITTEN APPLICATION REQUIREMENT. --The Public Information Act, including its "written application" requirement, does not apply to the Legislative Auditor's conduct of an audit. 76 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (March 18, 1991). DISCLOSURE OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CRIME VICTIMS. --A custodian of an investigatory record containing the name and address of a victim of crime would be required under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) to consider not only the privacy interests of the victim but also assertions about the public interest in disclosure that are made by the requester. In the end, the decision is left to the discretion of the custodian; notwithstanding the privacy interests at stake, the PIA does not forbid such disclosure. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). QUOTED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). @ 10-615. Required denials -- In general A custodian shall deny inspection of a public record or any part of a public record if: (1) by law, the public record is privileged or confidential; or (2) the inspection would be contrary to: (i) a State statute; (ii) a federal statute or a regulation that is issued under the statute and has the force of law; (iii) the rules adopted by the Court of Appeals; or (iv) an order of a court of record. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. WHEN INFORMATION SOUGHT FROM HOSPITAL SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE. --If a hospital is a public institution, and the information sought does not come under one of the statutory exceptions, the information sought should be made available. Moberly v. Herboldsheimer, 276 Md. 211, 345 A.2d 855 (1975). FEE PAID TO ITS ATTORNEY BY HOSPITAL IS NOT PRIVILEGED TRANSACTION because it is a confidential matter under the attorney-client relationship. Moberly v. Herboldsheimer, 276 Md. 211, 345 A.2d 855 (1975). FEE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN MARYLAND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FUND AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS is subject to public inspection. 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 579 (1977). EXEMPTIONS FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION DO NOT CREATE PRIVILEGES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY. Boyd v. Gullett, 64 F.R.D. 169 (D. Md. 1974). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). QUOTED IN Faulk v. State's Att'y, 299 Md. 493, 474 A.2d 880 (1984). @ 10-616. Same -- Specific records (a) In general. -- Unless otherwise provided by law, a custodian shall deny inspection of a public record, as provided in this section. (b) Adoption records. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of public records that relate to the adoption of an individual. (c) Welfare records. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of public records that relate to welfare for an individual. (d) Letters of reference. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of a letter of reference. (e) Circulation records, or other item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual. -- (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian shall prohibit inspection, use, or disclosure of a circulation record of a public library or other item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that: (i) is maintained by a library; (ii) contains an individual's name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual; and (iii) identifies the use a patron makes of that library's materials, services, or facilities. (2) A custodian shall permit inspection, use, or disclosure of a circulation record of a public library only in connection with the library's ordinary business and only for the purposes for which the record was created. (f) Gifts. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of library, archival, or museum material given by a person to the extent that the person who made the gift limits disclosure as a condition of the gift. (g) Retirement records. -- (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of a retirement record for an individual. (2) A custodian shall permit inspection: (i) by the person in interest; (ii) by the appointing authority of the individual; (iii) after the death of the individual, by a beneficiary, personal representative, or other person who satisfies the administrators of the retirement and pension systems that the person has a valid claim to the benefits of the individual; and (iv) by any law enforcement agency in order to obtain the home address of a retired employee of the agency when contact with a retired employee is documented to be necessary for official agency business. (3) A custodian shall permit inspection by the employees of a county unit that, by county law, is required to audit the retirement records for current or former employees of the county. However, the information obtained during the inspection is confidential, and the county unit and its employees may not disclose any information that would identify a person in interest. (4) On request, a custodian shall state whether the individual receives a retirement or pension allowance. (5) A custodian shall permit release of information as provided in Article 73B, @ 1-502 of the Code. (h) Certainies only to public records that relate to: (i) police reports of traffic accidents; (ii) criminal charging documents prior to service on the defendant named in the document; and (iii) traffic citations filed in the Maryland Automated Traffic System. (2) A custodian shall deny inspection of a record described in paragraph (1) of this subsection to any of the following persons who request inspection of records for the purpose of soliciting or marketing legal services: (i) an attorney who is not an attorney of record of a person named in the record; or (ii) a person who is employed by, retained by, associated with, or acting on behalf of an attorney described in this paragraph. (i) Personnel records. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of a personnel record of an individual, including an application, performance rating, or scholastic achievement information. (2) A custodian shall permit inspection by: (i) the person in interest; or (ii) an elected or appointed official who supervises the work of the individual. (j) Hospital records. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of a hospital record that: (1) relates to: (i) medical administration; (ii) staff; (iii) medical care; or (iv) other medical information; and (2) contains general or specific information about 1 or more individuals. (k) Student records. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of a school district record about the biography, family, physiology, religion, academic achievement, or physical or mental ability of a student. (2) A custodian shall permit inspection by: (i) the person in interest; or (ii) an elected or appointed official who supervises the student. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; ch. 285, @ 8; 1985, ch. 590; 1986, ch. 141; 1987, ch. 11, @ 1; 1988, ch. 233; 1990, ch. 635; 1992, ch. 100; ch. 131, @ 12. NOTES: EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --Chapter 100, Acts 1992, approved May 5, 1992, and effective from date of enactment, inserted present (h) and redesignated the remaining subsections accordingly. EDITOR'S NOTE. --Section 12, ch. 131, Acts 1992, effective July 1, 1992, provides that "subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Legislative Reference, the publishers of the Annotated Code of Maryland shall propose the correction of cross references that are rendered incorrect by this Act." Pursuant to @ 12 of ch. 131 appropriate changes have been made in (g) (5). BILL REVIEW LETTER. --Chapter 100, Acts 1992 (Senate Bill 702) was approved for constitutionality and legal sufficiency, as it was determined that the denial of access to police reports of traffic accidents, district court arrest warrants and commissioner warrants and traffic citations filed in the Maryland automated traffic citations except in certain circumstances does not violate the First Amendment rights of attorneys who currently use addresses gleaned from these records to advertise their services. (Letters of Attorney General dated Feb. 27 and Apr. 28, 1992). UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING NONDISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS SATISFIED. --The county may adequately meet its burden of proving that documents should not be released: (1) By presenting sufficient evidence showing that the withheld documents fell within one of the enumerated exemptions, and (2) by providing the court with sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest. This two-prong standard for meeting the burden of proof recognizes the agency's requirements for confidentiality and the public's interest in disclosure, but does not require a balancing process. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 55 Md. App. 276, 462 A.2d 528 (1983), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). PURPOSE OF DENYING INSPECTION OF PERSONNEL RECORDS is to preserve the privacy of personal information about a public employee that is accumulated during his or her employment. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 365 (1980). SOME CONCRETE NEXUS OF REAL OR POTENTIAL "SUPERVISION" MUST EXIST between the official and the employee before the exception allowing access to personnel records can be triggered. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 365 (1980). INSPECTION BY LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR OF PERSONNEL FILES. --If the Legislative Auditor requires access to personnel files in order to effectively perform the duties imposed upon him, he is entitled to knowledge of their contents in view of the mandate that the custodian of personnel records shall not deny access to them when their inspection is otherwise provided by law. 60 Op. Att'y Gen. 554 (1975). WHERE EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE HAS FILED CLAIM FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION WITH STATE ACCIDENT FUND, it would not be a violation of the provisions designating certain records as exempt from disclosure by providing its investigators with access to information concerning the claimant, or otherwise pertinent to the claim, contained in the Department's personnel files. 60 Op. Att'y Gen. 559 (1975). DISSEMINATION OF DEGREE AND CREDIT INFORMATION ON TEACHERS IN SPECIFIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS is not authorized. 60 Op. Att'y Gen. 600 (1975). INSPECTION BY LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR OF MEDICAL RECORDS. --The Legislative Auditor has broad authority to gain access to the medical records of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for the purpose of performing his lawful duties. 63 Op. Att'y Gen. 453 (1978). EXAMINATION OF ACADEMIC RECORDS OF CERTAIN STUDENTS AT MORGAN STATE. --It is permissible for a representative of the State Department of Education, who is the State's certifying agent on matters relating to institutional eligibility to participate in federal Veteran's Administration educational programs, to examine the academic records of certain students at Morgan State University. 61 Op. Att'y Gen. 340 (1976). EXEMPTIONS FROM INSPECTION DO NOT CREATE PRIVILEGES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY. Boyd v. Gullett, 64 F.R.D. 169 (D. Md. 1974). APPLICABILITY OF "LETTERS OF REFERENCE" PROVISION. --The provision in subsection (d) of this section exempting "letters of reference" from public disclosure applies to all letters -- solicited or unsolicited -- that concern a person's fitness for public office or employment. 68 Op. Att'y Gen. 335 (1983). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). QUOTED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). @ 10-617. Same -- Specific information (a) In general. -- Unless otherwise provided by law, a custodian shall deny inspection of a part of a public record, as provided in this section. (b) Medical and psychological information. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains medical or psychological information about an individual, other than an autopsy report of a medical examiner. (2) A custodian shall permit the person in interest to inspect the public record to the extent permitted under @ 4-302 (b) of the Health-General Article. (c) Sociological information. -- If the official custodian has adopted rules or regulations that define sociological information for purposes of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains sociological information, in accordance with the rules or regulations. (d) Commercial information. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains any of the following information provided by or obtained from any person or governmental unit: (1) a trade secret; (2) confidential commercial information; (3) confidential financial information; or (4) confidential geological or geophysical information. (e) Public employees. -- Subject to Article 73B, @ 1-502 of the Code, a custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains the home address or telephone number of an employee of a unit or instrumentality of the State or of a political subdivision unless: (1) the employee gives permission for the inspection; or (2) the unit or instrumentality that employs the individual determines that inspection is needed to protect the public interest. (f) Financial information. -- (1) This subsection does not apply to the salary of a public employee. (2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains information about the finances of an individual, including assets, income, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or credit worthiness. (3) A custodian shall permit inspection by the person in interest. (g) Information systems. -- A custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains information about the security of an information system. (h) Licensing records. -- (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains information about the licensing of an individual in an occupation or profession. (2) A custodian shall permit inspection of the part of a public record that gives: (i) the name of the licensee; (ii) the business address of the licensee or, if the business address is not available, the home address; (iii) the business telephone number of the licensee; (iv) the educational and occupational background of the licensee; (v) the professional qualifications of the licensee; (vi) any orders and findings that result from formal disciplinary actions; and (vii) any evidence that has been provided to the custodian to meet the requirements of a statute as to financial responsibility. (3) A custodian may permit inspection of other information about a licensee if: (i) the custodian finds a compelling public purpose; and (ii) the rules or regulations of the official custodian permit the inspection. (4) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection or other law, a custodian shall permit inspection by the person in interest. (5) A custodian who sells lists of licensees shall omit from the lists the name of any licensee, on written request of the licensee. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; ch. 285, @ 8; 1985, ch. 590; 1987, ch. 11, @ 1; 1992, ch. 131, @ 12. NOTES: EDITOR'S NOTE. --Section 12, ch. 131, Acts 1992, effective July 1, 1992, provides that "subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Legislative Reference, the publishers of the Annotated Code of Maryland shall propose the correction of cross references that are rendered incorrect by this Act." Pursuant to @ 12 of ch. 131 appropriate changes have been made in the introductory language of (e). UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). AUTOPSY REPORTS MAY BE OBTAINED from the custodian of such reports. 63 Op. Att'y Gen. 659 (1978). COMMERCIAL DATA. --The test for determining whether commercial data is confidential is an objective one which requires an inquiry as to whether such data is customarily regarded as confidential in the business and whether the withholding of the data would serve a governmental or private purpose sufficiently compelling to overcome the liberal disclosure policy of the State. 63 Op. Att'y Gen. 355 (1978). DISCLOSURE OF SHAREHOLDER INFORMATION. --The list of shareholder names, state and city or county of residence and number of shares owned, which must be submitted to the Bank Commissioner by a bank under former CA @ 6-119 (now see FI @ 3-212) is not exempt from the general requirement of disclosure and, therefore, must be disclosed to the public upon request. 59 Op. Att'y Gen. 59 (1974). DISCLOSURE OF THE VALUE OR DESCRIPTION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY. --The Unclaimed Property Section is prohibited by law from disclosing the value or description of assets reported to it as abandoned property, other than to the owner or the owner's designee. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 17, 1992). PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COUNTY OFFICER DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS. --Disclosure statements filed with the county ethics commission are filed pursuant to the financial disclosure section of the ordinance and must be maintained by the commission as public records available for public inspection and copying in their entirety. 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 282 (1986). DISSEMINATION OF DEGREE AND CREDIT INFORMATION ON TEACHERS IN SPECIFIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS is not authorized. 60 Op. Att'y Gen. 600 (1975). BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING NONDISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS SATISFIED. --A county may adequately meet its burden of proving that documents should not be released: (1) By presenting sufficient evidence showing that the withheld documents fell within one of the enumerated exemptions, and (2) by providing the court with sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest. This two-prong standard for meeting the burden of proof recognizes the agency's requirements for confidentiality and the public's interest in disclosure, but does not require a balancing process. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 55 Md. App. 276, 462 A.2d 528 (1983), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). EXEMPTIONS FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION DO NOT CREATE PRIVILEGES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY. Boyd v. Gullett, 64 F.R.D. 169 (D. Md. 1974). DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT. --A particular document may not be available to "any person" in light of the exceptions, but procedural due process requirements may yet make that same document available to a party, or unavailable for use against a party, in an administrative or judicial proceeding. Superintendent, Md. State Police v. Henschen, 279 Md. 468, 369 A.2d 558 (1977). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). STATED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). @ 10-618. Permissible denials (a) In general. -- Unless otherwise provided by law, if a custodian believes that inspection of a part of a public record by the applicant would be contrary to the public interest, the custodian may deny inspection by the applicant of that part, as provided in this section. (b) Interagency and intra-agency documents. -- A custodian may deny inspection of any part of an interagency or intra-agency letter or memorandum that would not be available by law to a private party in litigation with the unit. (c) Examinations. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian may deny inspection of test questions, scoring keys, and other examination information that relates to the administration of licenses, employment, or academic matters. (2) After a written promotional examination has been given and graded, a custodian shall permit a person in interest to inspect the examination and the results of the examination, but may not permit the person in interest to copy or otherwise to reproduce the examination. (d) Research projects. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian may deny inspection of a public record that contains the specific details of a research project that an institution of the State or of a political subdivision is conducting. (2) A custodian may not deny inspection of the part of a public record that gives only the name, title, expenditures, and date when the final project summary will be available. (e) Real property. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection or other law, until the State or a political subdivision acquires title to property, a custodian may deny inspection of a public record that contains a real estate appraisal of the property. (2) A custodian may not deny inspection to the owner of the property. (f) Investigations. -- (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian may deny inspection of: (i) records of investigations conducted by the Attorney General, a State's Attorney, a city or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff; (ii) an investigatory file compiled for any other law enforcement, judicial, correctional, or prosecution purpose; or (iii) records that contain intelligence information or security procedures of the Attorney General, a State's Attorney, a city or county attorney, a police department, a local correctional facility, or a sheriff. (2) A custodian may deny inspection by a person in interest only to the extent that the inspection would: (i) interfere with a valid and proper law enforcement proceeding; (ii) deprive another person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; (iii) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (iv) disclose the identity of a confidential source; (v) disclose an investigative technique or procedure; (vi) prejudice an investigation; or (vii) endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. (g) Site-specific location of certain plants, animals or property. -- (1) A custodian may deny inspection of a public record that contains information concerning the site-specific location of an endangered or threatened species of plant or animal, a species of plant or animal in need of conservation, a cave, or a historic property as defined in Article 83B, @ 5-601 (k) of the Code. (2) A custodian may not deny inspection of a public record described in paragraph (1) of this subsection if requested by: (i) the owner of the land upon which the resource is located; or (ii) any entity that could take the land through the right of eminent domain. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; ch. 285, @ 8; 1991, chs. 330, 378. NOTES: EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --Chapter 330, Acts 1991, effective July 1, 1991, added (g). Chapter 378, Acts 1991, effective July 1, 1991, inserted "a local correctional facility" in (f) (1) (iii). UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). IN GENERAL. --A public record must be disclosed upon request unless a provision of the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) or other law prohibits the custodian from disclosing the record, or a provision of the PIA or other law authorizes the custodian to refrain from disclosing it. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). APPLICABILITY. --Where defendant was not the object of a surveillance or the subject of an investigation, paragraph (f) (2) was inapplicable. Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). DETERMINATION WHETHER DISCLOSURE IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST is within the discretion of the custodian. 64 Op. Att'y Gen. 236 (1979). In determining whether, in an individual case, disclosure would result in one of the consequences listed the custodian must carefully consider whether that consequence is likely or possible and, then, objectively balance that possibility (and the conclusion that the disclosure would be contrary to the public interest) against the asserted public interest in favor of disclosure. 64 Op. Att'y Gen. 236 (1979). IN CAMERA INSPECTION. --The ultimate standard for determining whether an in camera inspection is to be made is whether the trial judge believes that it is needed in order to make a responsible determination on claims of exemptions. Factors which may be involved in such a decision are judicial economy, the conclusory nature of the agency affidavits, bad faith on the part of the agency, disputes concerning the contents of the document, whether the agency has proposed in camera inspection, and the strength of the public interest in disclosure. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984); Epps v. Simms, 89 Md. App. 371, 598 A.2d 756 (1991). If a detailed description cannot be given in affidavits without revealing the very information sought to be protected, there is strong reason for conducting an in camera inspection. Epps v. Simms, 89 Md. App. 371, 598 A.2d 756 (1991). IF AN AGENCY HAS FRUSTRATED JUDICIAL REVIEW BY PRESENTING TESTIMONY OR AFFIDAVITS IN CONCLUSORY FORM, the trial court may, depending upon all of the circumstances, appropriately exercise its discretion by ordering more detailed affidavits or by conducting an in camera inspection or simply by ordering disclosure because of the agency's failure to meet its burden of satisfying the court that an exemption applies. Epps v. Simms, 89 Md. App. 371, 598 A.2d 756 (1991). PERSON IN INTEREST. --Defendant political committee was not a person in interest in the context of paragraph (f) (2). Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). DISCLOSURE OF POLICE REPORTS TO "PERSON IN INTEREST." --Subsection (f) permits a custodian to deny access to the record of an investigation conducted by a police department provided that, if the one seeking access is "a person in interest," access is denied only if one or more of seven enumerated circumstances exist. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban v. Mayor of Baltimore, 91 Md. App. 251, 603 A.2d 1364 (1992), rev'd on other grounds, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). DENIAL OF INSPECTION TO PERSON IN INTEREST. --The seven circumstances, listed in paragraph (f) (2), which permit the custodian to deny records of a police investigation to a party in interest are illustrative of the concerns that would make disclosure contrary to the public interest. Those seven circumstances, however, are not exclusive of the public interest concerns that can justify a refusal to permit inspection under paragraph (f) (1). Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). Under paragraph (f) (2), inspection may be denied to the person in interest only to the extent that the inspection would give rise to one of the seven enumerated circumstances; this requires analyzing the investigation file material in order to distinguish between that which reflects one or more of the enumerated circumstances and that which does not. In contrast, when the request to inspect is made by one other than a person in interest and paragraph (f) (1) applies, permissible denial applies to the entire record, to the extent that inspection would be contrary to the public interest. Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). DISCLOSURE OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CRIME VICTIMS. --A custodian of an investigatory record containing the name and address of a victim of crime would be required under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) to consider not only the privacy interests of the victim but also assertions about the public interest in disclosure that are made by the requester. In the end, the decision is left to the discretion of the custodian; notwithstanding the privacy interests at stake, the PIA does not forbid such disclosure. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. -- (November 16, 1992). DISCLOSURE OF POLICE REPORTS TO DEFENDANT NOT REQUIRED. --This subtitle does not require the State to disclose investigatory police reports compiled for law-enforcement purposes to a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding. Faulk v. State's Att'y, 299 Md. 493, 474 A.2d 880 (1984). WHERE PERSON SEEKING INSPECTION IS NOT A PERSON IN INTEREST. --If a person seeking inspection of the records of a police department investigation is not a person in interest, and if the custodian believes that disclosure of the records of the police investigation is not in the public interest, the Public Information Act does not require disclosure. Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). PARTICULARIZED SHOWING OF INTERFERENCE NOT REQUIRED TO DENY DISCLOSURE OF POLICE REPORTS TO CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. --The State is not required to make a particularized showing that the disclosure of investigatory police reports compiled for law-enforcement purposes to a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding would interfere with that pending criminal proceeding; rather, a generic determination of interference can be made whenever a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding seeks access to investigatory police reports relating to that pending criminal proceeding. Faulk v. State's Att'y, 299 Md. 493, 474 A.2d 880 (1984). SHOWING REGARDING INVESTIGATORY RECORDS MAKING EXCEPTION APPLICABLE. --When the documents in question constitute records of an investigation by a police department, sheriff's office or any of the other law-enforcement agencies specifically listed, there need not be an actual showing that the records were compiled for law-enforcement or prosecution purposes for the exception to be applicable. Superintendent, Md. State Police v. Henschen, 279 Md. 468, 369 A.2d 558 (1977). INVESTIGATIVE REPORT USED FOR GRAND JURY PROCEEDING. --State's Attorney is neither required nor authorized to disclose police investigative report or any part of it which report was used for grand jury proceeding. 64 Op. Att'y Gen. 236 (1979). ARREST LOGS NOT EXEMPT FROM INSPECTION. --Since arrest logs are not "records of investigation" or "investigatory files," the exemption from public inspection does not apply. 63 Op. Att'y Gen. 543 (1978). RECORDS OF HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION. --The Human Relations Commission is not a named "law-enforcement agency" whose records are presumed to be compiled for law-enforcement or prosecution purposes and which are thus protected against public disclosure. Equitable Trust Co. v. State of Md. Comm'n on Human Relations, 42 Md. App. 53, 399 A.2d 908 (1979), rev'd on other grounds, 287 Md. 80, 411 A.2d 86 (1980). DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT. --A particular document may not be available to "any person" in light of the exceptions, but procedural due process requirements may yet make that same document available to a party, or unavailable for use against a party, in an administrative or judicial proceeding. Superintendent, Md. State Police v. Henschen, 279 Md. 468, 369 A.2d 558 (1977). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). QUOTED IN Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 66 Md. App. 133, 502 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 306 Md. 289, 508 A.2d 488, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984, 107 S. Ct. 571, 93 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1986). @ 10-619. Temporary denials (a) Permitted. -- Whenever this Part III of this subtitle authorizes inspection of a public record but the official custodian believes that inspection would cause substantial injury to the public interest, the official custodian may deny inspection temporarily. (b) Petition. -- (1) Within 10 working days after the denial, the official custodian shall petition a court to order permitting the continued denial of inspection. (2) The petition shall be filed with the circuit court for the county where: (i) the public record is located; or (ii) the principal place of business of the official custodian is located. (3) The petition shall be served on the applicant, as provided in the Maryland Rules. (c) Rights of applicant. -- The applicant is entitled to appear and to be heard on the petition. (d) Hearing. -- If, after the hearing, the court finds that inspection of the public record would cause substantial injury to the public interest, the court may pass an appropriate order permitting the continued denial of inspection. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 3; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. DETERMINATION WHETHER DISCLOSURE IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST is within the discretion of the custodian. 64 Op. Att'y Gen. 236 (1979). "SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." --The tactical disadvantage which a city may suffer in resolving a pending claim, because of a disclosure, is not sufficient to establish a "substantial injury to the public interest" under this section. Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). @ 10-620. Copies (a) In general. -- (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an applicant who is authorized to inspect a public record may have: (i) a copy, printout, or photograph of the public record; or (ii) if the custodian does not have facilities to reproduce the public record, access to the public record to make the copy, printout, or photograph. (2) An applicant may not have a copy of a judgment until: (i) the time for appeal expires; or (ii) if an appeal is noted, the appeal is dismissed or adjudicated. (b) Conditions. -- (1) The copy, printout, or photograph shall be made: (i) while the public record is in the custody of the custodian; and (ii) whenever practicable, where the public record is kept. (2) The official custodian may set a reasonable time schedule to make copies, printouts, or photographs. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 4; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. @ 10-621. Fees (a) In general. -- Subject to the limitations in this section, the official custodian may charge an applicant a reasonable fee for the search for, preparation of, and reproduction of a public record. (b) Limitation on search and preparation fees. -- The official custodian may not charge a fee for the first 2 hours that are needed to search for a public record and prepare it for inspection. (c) Limitation on reproduction fees. -- (1) If another law sets a fee for a copy, printout, or photograph of a public record, that law applies. (2) The official custodian otherwise may charge any reasonable fee for making or supervising the making of a copy, printout, or photograph of a public record. (3) The official custodian may charge for the cost of providing facilities for the reproduction of the public record if the custodian did not have the facilities. (d) Waiver. -- The official custodian may waive a fee under this section if: (1) the applicant asks for a waiver; and (2) after consideration of the ability of the applicant to pay the fee and other relevant factors, the official custodian determines that the waiver would be in the public interest. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 4; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. DENIAL OF FEE WAIVER. --Where the city did not try to find ways to minimize the expense of disclosure the denial of a fee waiver under this section was arbitrary and capricious. Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683 (1986). @ 10-622. Administrative review (a) Scope of section. -- This section does not apply when the official custodian temporarily denies inspection under @ 10-619 of this subtitle. (b) Permitted. -- If a unit is subject to Subtitle 2 of this title, a person or governmental unit may seek administrative review in accordance with that subtitle of a decision of the unit, under this Part III of this subtitle, to deny inspection of any part of a public record. (c) Not required. -- A person or governmental unit need not exhaust the remedy under this section before filing suit. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 5; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. @ 10-623. Judicial review (a) Petition authorized. -- Whenever a person or governmental unit is denied inspection of a public record, the person or governmental unit may file a complaint with the circuit court for the county where: (1) the complainant resides or has a principal place of business; or (2) the public record is located. (b) Defendant. -- (1) Unless, for good cause shown, the court otherwise directs and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to the complaint within 30 days after service of the complaint. (2) The defendant: (i) has the burden of sustaining a decision to deny inspection of a public record; and (ii) in support of the decision, may submit a memorandum to the court. (c) Court. -- (1) Except for cases that the court considers of greater importance, a proceeding under this section, including an appeal, shall: (i) take precedence on the docket; (ii) be heard at the earliest practicable date; and (iii) be expedited in every way. (2) The court may examine the public record in camera to determine whether any part of it may be withheld under this Part III of this subtitle. (3) The court may: (i) enjoin the State, a political subdivision, or a unit, official, or employee of the State or of a political subdivision from withholding the public record; (ii) pass an order for the production of the public record that was withheld from the complainant; and (iii) for noncompliance with the order, punish the responsible employee for contempt. (d) Damages. -- (1) A defendant governmental unit is liable to the complainant for actual damages and any punitive damages that the court considers appropriate if the court finds that any defendant knowingly and willfully failed to disclose or fully to disclose a public record that the complainant was entitled to inspect under this Part III of this subtitle. (2) An official custodian is liable for actual damages and any punitive damages that the court considers appropriate if the court finds that, after temporarily denying inspection of a public record, the official custodian failed to petition a court for an order to continue the denial. (e) Disciplinary action. -- (1) Whenever the court orders the production of a public record that was withheld from the applicant and, in addition, finds that the custodian acted arbitrarily or capriciously in withholding the public record, the court shall send a certified copy of its finding to the appointing authority of the custodian. (2) On receipt of the statement of the court and after an appropriate investigation, the appointing authority shall take the disciplinary action that the circumstances warrant. (f) Costs. -- If the court determines that the complainant has substantially prevailed, the court may assess against a defendant governmental unit reasonable counsel fees and other litigation costs that the complainant reasonably incurred. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @@ 3, 5; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; ch. 285, @ 8. MARYLAND LAW REVIEW. --For comment discussing sovereign immunity from statutes of limitation in Maryland, see 46 Md. L. Rev. 408 (1987). UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW. --For note discussing executive privilege to prevent disclosure of official information, see 10 U. Balt. L. Rev. 385 (1981). IN CAMERA REVIEW PROVISION IS DISCRETIONARY and does not mandate that documents be individually examined. Equitable Trust Co. v. State of Md. Comm'n on Human Relations, 42 Md. App. 53, 399 A.2d 908 (1979), rev'd on other grounds, 287 Md. 80, 411 A.2d 86 (1980); Cranford v. Montgomery County, 55 Md. App. 276, 462 A.2d 528 (1983), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). DENIAL OF REQUEST NOT ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHERE BASED ON REASONABLE BELIEF THAT DOCUMENTS EXEMPT. --Chancellors will not be held to have abused their discretion in denying a request for an in camera review so long as the record contains sufficient evidence presented by the government from which the chancellor could form a reasonable belief that the documents fall within a statutory exemption to public disclosure laws. A chancellor's discretion need not be limited by the ability or inability of the movant to rebut the government's evidence; rather, the arguments and evidence of the movants are merely additional factors to be considered by the chancellor in the exercise of his discretion. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 55 Md. App. 276, 462 A.2d 528 (1983), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). MEANING OF "SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED" UNDER SUBSECTION (F) includes a showing that the lawsuit was reasonably necessary in order to gain release of the information, that there was a causal nexus between the lawsuit and the surrender of the requested information, and that key documents were recovered. Kline v. Fuller, 64 Md. App. 375, 496 A.2d 325 (1985). DEFENDANT STATE AGENCY OR CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS BEARS BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING NONDISCLOSURE when an aggrieved party seeks judicial review of an administrative denial of access to records. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 55 Md. App. 276, 462 A.2d 528 (1983), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). DEFENDANT STATE AGENCY'S BURDEN. --The State is not required to make a particularized showing that the disclosure of investigatory police reports compiled for law-enforcement purposes to a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding would interfere with that pending criminal proceeding; rather, a generic determination of interference can be made whenever a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding seeks access to investigatory police reports relating to that pending criminal proceeding. Faulk v. State's Att'y, 299 Md. 493, 474 A.2d 880 (1984). COURT MAY EXERCISE DISCRETION IN DEALING WITH AGENCY NONCOMPLIANCE. --If an agency has frustrated judicial review by presenting testimony or affidavits in conclusory form, the trial court may, depending upon all of the circumstances, appropriately exercise its discretion by ordering more detailed affidavits or by conducting an in camera inspection or simply by ordering disclosure because of the agency's failure to meet its burden of satisfying the court that an exemption applies. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). ULTIMATE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER IN CAMERA INSPECTION IS TO BE MADE is whether the trial judge believes that it is needed in order to make a responsible determination on claims of exemptions. Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984). ANY ACTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS under CJ @ 5-110. Kline v. Fuller, 56 Md. App. 294, 467 A.2d 786 (1983). APPLIED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986). CITED IN Mayor of Baltimore v. Maryland Comm. Against Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). @ 10-624. Personal records (a) "Personal record" defined. -- In this section, "personal record" means a public record that names or, with reasonable certainty, otherwise identifies an individual by an identifying factor such as: (1) an address; (2) a description; (3) a finger or voice print; (4) a number; or (5) a picture. (b) Annual report. -- (1) This subsection does not apply to: (i) a unit in the Legislative Branch of the State government; (ii) a unit in the Judicial Branch of the State government; or (iii) a board of license commissioners. (2) If a unit or instrumentality of the State government keeps personal records, the unit or instrumentality shall submit an annual report to the Secretary of General Services, as provided in this subsection. (3) An annual report shall state: (i) the name of the unit or instrumentality; (ii) for each set of the personal records: 1. the name; 2. the location; and 3. if a subunit keeps the set, the name of the subunit; (iii) for each set of personal records that has not been previously reported: 1. the category of individuals to whom the set applies; 2. a brief description of the types of information that the set contains; 3. the major uses and purposes of the information; 4. by category, the source of information for the set; and 5. the policies and procedures of the unit or instrumentality as to access and challenges to the personal record by the person in interest and storage, retrieval, retention, disposal, and security, including controls on access; and (iv) for each set of personal records that has been disposed of or changed significantly since the unit or instrumentality last submitted a report, the information required under item (iii) of this paragraph. (4) A unit or instrumentality that has 2 or more sets of personal records may combine the personal records in the report only if the character of the personal records is highly similar. (5) The Secretary of General Services shall adopt regulations that govern the form and method of reporting under this subsection. (6) The annual report shall be available for public inspection. (c) Access for research. -- The official custodian may permit inspection of personal records for which inspection otherwise is not authorized by a person who is engaged in a research project if: (1) the researcher submits to the official custodian a written request that: (i) describes the purpose of the research project; (ii) describes the intent, if any, to publish the findings; (iii) describes the nature of the requested personal records; (iv) describes the safeguards that the researcher would take to protect the identity of the persons in interest; and (v) states that persons in interest will not be contacted unless the official custodian approves and monitors the contact; (2) the official custodian is satisfied that the proposed safeguards will prevent the disclosure of the identity of persons in interest; and (3) the researcher makes an agreement with the unit or instrumentality that: (i) defines the scope of the research project; (ii) sets out the safeguards for protecting the identity of the persons in interest; and (iii) states that a breach of any condition of the agreement is a breach of contract. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 5A; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. @ 10-625. Corrections of public record (a) Request for change permitted. -- A person in interest may request a unit of the State government to correct inaccurate or incomplete information in a public record that: (1) the unit keeps; and (2) the person in interest is authorized to inspect. (b) Contents of request. -- A request under this section shall: (1) be in writing; (2) describe the requested change precisely; and (3) state the reasons for the change. (c) Action on request. -- (1) Within 30 days after receiving a request under this section, a unit shall: (i) make or refuse to make the requested change; and (ii) give the person in interest written notice of the action taken. (2) A notice of refusal shall contain the unit's reasons for the refusal. (d) Statement of disagreement. -- (1) If the unit finally refuses a request under this section, the person in interest may submit to the unit a concise statement that, in 5 pages or less, states the reasons for the request and for disagreement with the refusal. (2) Whenever the unit provides the disputed information to a third party, the unit shall provide to that party a copy of the statement submitted to the unit by the person in interest. (e) Administrative and judicial review. -- If a unit is subject to Subtitle 2 of this title, a person or governmental unit may seek administrative and judicial review in accordance with that subtitle of: (1) a decision of the unit to deny: (i) a request to change a public record; or (ii) a right to submit a statement of disagreement; or (2) the failure of the unit to provide the statement to a third party. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @@ 4A, 5; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; ch. 285, @ 8; 1992, ch. 547. NOTES: EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --The 1992 amendment, effective Jan. 1, 1993, reenacted the section without change. EDITOR'S NOTE. --Section 2, ch. 547, Acts 1992, provides that "the Chief Medical Examiner, in consultation with the Office of Administrative Hearings, shall adopt final regulations for the purpose of implementing this Act, to be effective January 1, 1993." Section 3 of ch. 547 provides that "this Act shall be construed retroactively and shall be applied to and interpreted to affect all certificates of death for individuals who died on or after May 1, 1987. Notwithstanding the restrictions of @ 5-310 (d) (2) (i) of the Health-General Article as enacted by @ 1 of this Act, persons in interest may request corrections to certificates of death for individuals who died on or after May 1, 1987, by filing a request with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner no later than June 30, 1993." @ 10-626. Unlawful disclosure of personal records (a) Liability. -- A person, including an officer or employee of a governmental unit, is liable to an individual for actual damages and any punitive damages that the court considers appropriate if: (1) the person willfully and knowingly permits inspection or use of a public record in violation of this Part III of this subtitle; and (2) the public record names or, with reasonable certainty, otherwise identifies the individual by an identifying factor such as: (i) an address; (ii) a description; (iii) a finger or voice print; (iv) a number; or (v) a picture. (b) Costs. -- If the court determines that the complainant has substantially prevailed, the court may assess against a defendant reasonable counsel fees and other litigation costs that the complainant reasonably incurred. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 5; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. @ 10-627. Prohibited acts; criminal penalties (a) Prohibited acts. -- A person may not: (1) willfully or knowingly violate any provision of this Part III of this subtitle; (2) fail to petition a court after temporarily denying inspection of a public record; or (3) by false pretenses, bribery, or theft, gain access to or obtain a copy of a personal record whose disclosure to the person is prohibited by this Part III of this subtitle. (b) Criminal penalties. -- A person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @@ 3, 5; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1. @ 10-628. Immunity for certain disclosures A custodian is not civilly or criminally liable for transferring or disclosing the contents of a public record to the Attorney General under @ 3-310 of the State Personnel Article. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 76A, @ 5; 1984, ch. 284, @ 1; 1993, ch. 22, @ 1. NOTES: EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --The 1993 amendment, effective Oct. 1, 1993, substituted "@ 3-310 of the State Personnel Article" for "Article 64A, @ 12J of the Code." EDITOR'S NOTE. --Section 3, ch. 22, Acts 1993, provides that "this Act is not intended to change the status as of October 1, 1993 of any employee, official, or position from the State Personnel Management System or any other personnel system to a different personnel system, from the unclassified service to the classified service, from the classified service to the unclassified service, or otherwise from one employment status to a different employment status." Section 4 of ch. 22 provides that "except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Act, any transaction or employment status affected by or flowing from any change of nomenclature or any statute amended, repealed, or transferred by this Act and validly entered into or existing before October 1, 1993 and every right, duty, or interest flowing from the statute, remains valid after October 1, 1993 and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced as required or allowed by any statute amended, repealed, or transferred by this Act as though the repeal, amendment, or transfer had not occurred. If the change in nomenclature involves a change in name or designation of any State unit, the successor unit shall be considered in all respects as having the powers and obligations granted the former unit."