THE ATTORB~EY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

September 17, 1990 

Honorable Mike Driscoll Opinion No. JM-1224 

Harris County Attorney 

1001 Preston Re: 

Suite 634 

Whether information relating 

to criminal cases is subject to 

Houston, Texas 77002 disclosure and related questions 

(RQ-1482) 

Dear Mr. Driscoll: 

You ask nine questions regarding the operation of the 

Harris County computer system and the authority of a board 

created by the Harris 

the system. 

County Commissioners Court to manage 

The questions stem from disagreements over the 

control of and access to information stored in the computer. 

Before considering your questions, we will briefly review 

/" the factual information supplied by your office and others. 

In October of 1977 the commissioners court created a 

county department called the Justice Information Management 

System (JIMS), evidently for the purpose of operating and 

maintaining the county's central computer system.1 The 

duties of the department include, among other things, the 

programming of the central computer to meet the needs of 

those county offices with authorized access to the system, 

the training of county officials and employees in the use of 

the computer, and the assignment of passwords and transaction codes to control access to information stored in the 

computer. Some of these tasks are performed in 

with the county data processing department. 

conjunction 

Your request for this opinion is prompted by the use of 

the county computer to collect and maintain information 

regarding pending and closed criminal cases. You inform us 

that the district clerk, 

sheriff, the county 

the district attorney, the county 

criminal courts, the county pre-trial 

1. As we understand it, the central 

only electronic data processing 

computer is the 

resource available to most 

county offices. 

r 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-1224) 

services agency, the county adult probation department and 

juvenile probation department, justices of the peace, and 

county constables all store information concerning criminal 

cases in the computer. Though controls are programmed into 

the system by JIMS and the 

information 

data processing department, 

originally collected and entered into the 

computer by one agency may later be retrieved and updated by 

other agencies or be integrated with information collected 

by other agencies. These 

concerning the 

conditions have raised questions 

"custody" and control of criminal case 

information stored in the county computer. 

The commissioners court appointed an executive board to 

oversee the operation of JIMS and the computer system. The 

board was specifically empowered to "establish and audit 

security codes" and to "authorize data elements to be 

entered and to whom they shall be distributed." The 

board's membership is composed of the administrative judge 

of the district courts trying criminal cases, the presiding 

judge of the county criminal courts at law, a judge of one 

of the family district courts, a judge of one of the 

juvenile district courts, a justice of the peace, the 

district attorney, the district clerk, the county sheriff, 

and a county constable. 

In 1985 the JIMS executive board executed an 

with the Texas Department 

agreement 

of Public Safety (DPS) regarding 

access to the Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications 

Systems (TLETS), a statewide clearinghouse for information 

collected and' exchanged between law enforcement agencies 

throughout the state. The system, managed and operated by 

the DPS, provides local law enforcement agencies access to 

the resources of the National Crime Information Center, the 

National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the 

Texas Crime Information Center, the vehicle registration 

files of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas 

of Highways 

Department 

and Public Transportation, and the driver's 

license files of the DPS. 

Among other things, the agreement between the JIMS 

board and the DPS requires JIMS to abide by all applicable 

state and federal laws, as well as any policies and procedures adopted by the administrators of the information 

systems that comprise the network. Though the agreement is 

silent on the matter, the JIMS board apparently interpreted 

the agreement to also impose on it the duty to ensure 

compliance by all users of the system. Violation of 

P. 6486 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 3 (JM-1224) 

applicable policies may result in an immediate suspension of 

service.2 

Security breaches at the county level prompted the JIMS 

board to adopt security policies 

access to the computer 

and procedures governing 

system and retrieval of information 

collected in criminal proceedings. 

all persons 

The board now requires 

with access to the system to execute a form 

acknowledging that they understand the security policies and 

that violation of the policies and procedures may result in 

termination of their employment. The board also has 

instituted a policy of unilaterally terminating access to 

the computer system by persons, offices, 

deemed in 

or departments 

noncompliance with the 

1986, this policy was 

security policies. In 

invoked against the office of the 

district clerk for its refusal to execute the security 

forms. 

With these facts in mind, we now proceed to your first 

set of questions. 

1. If the district clerk enters information 

contained in instruments, pleadings, 

orders, and documents in criminal cases 

in the county's computer to produce 

indices, registers and dockets, are such 

electronic/computer records public? Does 

such information constitute exempt criminal justice information? 

2. Are such computer records part of the 

district clerk*s tofficial records'? 

These questions relate to the status of information 

collected by the district clerk from court documents and 

transmitted to the county computer. The information the 

district clerk transfers to the computer includes basic data 

such as the defendant's name and date of birth, the name of 

his attorney, and other information reflecting progress of 

2. We are informed that the DPS, in the exercise of 

its discretion, designated the Harris County central 

computer system as the sole link to the TLETS network in 

Harris County. All local law enforcement agencies in Harris 

County that receive TLETS, including those not affiliated 

with the county government, must obtain access to the system 

through the Harris County computer. 

P. 6487 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 4 (JM-1224) 

the defendant's case through the court system. The district 

clerk maintains the original documents from which the information was obtained, the 

document, or both. 

a microfilm or microfiche copy of 

With this information the district clerk 

creates a number of separate documents including indices, 

case summaries, case status reports, calendars, and other 

documents relating to pending or closed criminal cases. 

You have informed us of a case filed with the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals that deals with issues similar to 

the ones you pose. It is styled Houston Chronicle Publishino Co. v. The Honorable Charles Hearn. District Judae, 

263rd District Court. Harris Countv. Texas, No. 

(filed Nov. 22, 1989). 

20,998-01 

At issue was an order of the administrative judge of the district courts of Harris County that 

forbids the district clerk and county sheriff from disclosing the street addresses or telephone numbers of any defendant in any criminal case in the district courts until an 

attorney is hired or appointed to represent the defendant. 

A newspaper publisher and a reporter contested the 

order. They attacked it as an infringement of their 

of access to court files under the 

right 

First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution and article I, sections 8, 10, 

and 13, of the Texas Constitution. They filed a motion 

before the Court of Criminal Appeals for leave to file 

application for writs of mandamus and prohibition. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the motion without 

written order'on March 7, 1990. As a result of this ruling, 

the order of the district judge prohibiting the district 

clerk and sheriff from releasing the specified information 

remains in effect. It is inappropriate in an opinion of the 

attorney general to review or interpret the orders of the 

courts mandating that certain information be kept confidential. See. e.a Open Records Decision No. 560 (1990). 

in light of the'possibility of 

And 

further litigation on this 

matter, we will defer answering your questions as they 

relate to records in the custody of the district clerk until 

the matter is finally resolved. If, following resolution of 

this matter, you still require an opinion on the status of 

the records of the district 

questions at that time. 

clerk, please resubmit your 

3. What criminal history information, if 

any, which is maintained or which may be 

accessed through the county's computer 

may be disclosed by the district clerk 

and other county officials? 

P. 6488 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 5 (JM-1224) 

We assume that by use of the term "criminal history 

information" you refer to information relating to criminal 

cases, the disclosure of which may be governed by state or 

federal law and regulations. 

Federal law and regulations govern the dissemination of 

criminal history record that 

collect, maintain, 

information by agencies 

and exchange such information with 

support provided by the federal government for such 

purposes. See 42 U.S.C. § 3789g(c): 28 C.F.R. 

Criminal history record information is defined as 

§ 20.21(b). 

information collected by criminal justice 

agencies on individuals 

tifiable descriptions 

consisting of idenand notations of 

arrests, detentions, 

tions, 

indictments, informaor other formal criminal charges, and 

any disposition arising therefrom, sentenciw , correctional supervision, and release. 

28 C.F.R. § 20.3(b). The federal regulations are intended 

to protect individual privacy and to insure that criminal 

history information, wherever it appears, is 

stored, and disseminated in a 

collected, 

manner that insures its 

completeness, accuracy, and security. Id.520.1. 

State and local agencies maintaining and disseminating 

criminal history information with federal assistance are 

subject to certain restrictions on dissemination set forth 

in the federal regulations. See id. 55 20.20 - 20.25. 

These restrictions do not 

information contained in 

apply to criminal history 

court records 

proceedings. 

of public judicial 

Id. 5 20.20(b)(3). Thus, federal regulations 

have no bearing on the disclosure of criminal history 

information in records of public judicial proceedings that 

are in the custody of the district clerk. There remains, 

however, the issue of the disclosure of information from 

court records under state law, an issue left unresolved by 

the Houston Chronicle v. Hearn case. For this reason, we 

are unable to answer your third question as it relates to 

the district clerk at this time. We can answer the question 

as it applies to other county and district offices. 

The federal regulations described here affect two 

categories of criminal history information: (1) information 

collected, stored, 

agencies, and 

and disseminated by state or local 

(2) information obtained from any United 

States Department of Justice criminal history record 

information system. 

p. 6489 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 6 (JM-1224) 

The regulations affecting state and local operations do 

not purport to make any criminal history information confidential, but authorize the states and local governments to 

determine the purposes for which criminal history record 

information may be disseminated pursuant to state law, executive order, local ordinance, or a rule, decision, or order 

of a court. a 5 20.21(c)(3). The regulations do not 

limit dissemination by a state or local agency of criminal 

history information that originates from the agency itself. 

See Open Records Decision No. 144 (1976). One regulation 

allows dissemination to "individuals and agencies for any 

purpose authorized by statute . . . as construed by 

appropriate state or local officials or agencies." Id. 

5 20.21(b)(2). These provisions require consultation of the 

Open Records Act, V.T.C.S. article 6252-17a, and interpretations of the act by the courts and this office. 

The availability of information relating to arrests 

under section 3(a) (8) of the Open Records Act was determined 

in Houston Chronicle Publishinb Co. v. Citv of Houston 531 

S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Civ. ADD. - Houston rl4th Dist.1 i975). 

writ ref'd n.r.e. oer curiam 536 S.W.22 559 (Tex: 

and summarized in Open Record; Decision No. 

19763; 

127 (1976). The 

holding in that case prohibits the disclosure to the public 

of the chronological history of an individual's arrests and 

their disposition. 531 S.W.2d at 187-88. 

The federal regulations referenced here also address 

the dissemination of criminal history information contained 

in any United States Department of Justice criminal history 

information system, including NCIC. See 28 C.F.R. 58 20.30 

- 20.38. Dissemination of criminal history information 

contained in any such system is authorized in four 

instances. See id. 5 20.33. In addition, the subjects of 

criminal historyxformation are allowed access to their own 

criminal histories. Id. § 20.34; see Open Records Decision 

No. 565 (1990). These regulations are not germane to the 

office of district clerk, since it does not have access to 

Department of Justice criminal history information systems. 

County offices that have access to such systems must, of 

course, abide by federal regulations and policies in order 

to receive assistance from the information systems. See 28 

C.F.R. 5 20.36. 

Consequently, county officials are not required to 

disclose to the public criminal history information 

maintained on the Harris County computer system that is 

collected by a county or district office, even if acquired 

without the assistance of any Department of Justice criminal 

history information system. Information obtained from these 

P. 6490 
P 

Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 7 (JM-1224) 

federal sources may be disseminated in accordance with 

federal regulations. 

State law also addresses the collection and dissemination of criminal history information by criminal justice 

agencies. Chapter 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 

articles 60.01 through 60.09, was enacted by the 71st Legislature and became effective on September 1, 1989. Acts 

1989, 71st Leg., ch. 785, 5 6.01 at 3548. It delegates to 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) the responsibility of establishing a data base for a centralized 

criminal history record information system. Code Crim. 

Proc. art. 60.02(a). The DPS is given the duty of maintaining a data base for a computerized criminal history 

information system that serves as a "record creation point" 

for criminal history information maintained by the state. 

Id. art. 60.02(b). 

Under chapter 60, criminal justice agencies are expected to maintain and report to the TDCJ and the DPS specified 

information relating to criminal cases, with certain exceptions. See L arts. 60.05, 60.06(a). Criminal justice 

agencies must also provide other criminal justice agencies 

- with access to their own criminal history information 

systems. The duties imposed on criminal justice agencies by 

article 60.06 are also imposed on the clerks of the district 

and county courts. & art. 60.06(e). 

Information on an individual collected by the TDCJ and 

the DPS from criminal justice agencies and stored in a 

central location that consists of 

an identifiable description and notation of 

an arrest, detention, indictment, information, or other formal criminal charge and a 

disposition of the charge including sentencing, correctional supervision, and release . . . is not subject to public disclosure except as authorized by federal or 

state law or regulation.3 

3. This language parallels the definition of "criminal 

history record information" found at title 28, section 20.3, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations and quoted in a preceding 

- 

paragraph. 

P* 6491 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 8 (JM-1224) 

Id. art. 60.06(b). This limitation does not apply to a 

document of a criminal justice agency that is the source of 

information collected by the TDCJ. Id. art. 

Similarly, 

60.06(C). 

an individual's criminal history record may not 

be disclosed to the public by either a criminal justice 

agency or the Criminal Justice Policy Council if the record 

is protected by state or federal law or regulation. a 

art. 60.03(b). Chapter 60 thus requires an examination of 

other state and federal laws governing disclosure of 

criminal history information. See aenerally Open Records 

Decision No. 565 (1990). 

4. Who is the \custodian* of all or portions 

of the records contained in the county's 

computer? 

This question is prompted by general concerns over the 

control and B1custody** of information stored in the county 

computer. The JIMS board, you advise, contends it is the 

custodian of all information housed in the county computer 

and is thereby authorized to determine who may have access 

to that information. You emphasize that the question of 

control is significant because computer programming allows a 

county office to manipulate information in the computer 

files of other offices simply by updating information in its 

OWn computerized records. 

notation in the 

The example you give is a 

records of a court that a defendant in a 

criminal case is released on personal recognizance. Once 

this information is entered into the court's or the district 

clerk's computer files, the computer system automatically 

updates the information in computer files created for the 

same case by other county offices 

or district attorney). 

(e.a., the county sheriff 

You acknowledge that this may be an 

efficient use of the county 

it improperly 

computer, but you believe that 

wrests control 

officers who may have 

from the hands of county 

a legal duty to retain control over 

such information. 

YOU argue that county officers, designated the 

custodians of records of their respective offices by the 

Open Records Act, should retain control of information 

maintained by their offices, including information housed in 

the county computer. We agree with your conclusion, but 

note that the issue of control is 

legislation. 

resolved by recent 

Prior to 1989, there was little law expressly governing 

the establishment or operation of 

recordkeeping system for the use of coun:y 

computerized 

or district 

officers. See. e.a., Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.26 (repealed 

P. 6492 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 9 (JM-1224) 

in 1989, provided that commissioners court could authorize, 

among other things, the electronic entry, storage, and 

retrieval of records which the Code of Criminal Procedure 

requires county officers to keep); Gov't Code 5s 51.801 - 

51.807 (authorizing the electronic filing of certain 

documents in district and county courts, subject to rules 

and procedures adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas). 

Authority for the establishment of a computer system by a 

commissioners court is now expressly recognized in the Local 

Government Code. 

Subtitle C of Title 6 of the Local Government Code was 

amended during the 71st Legislative Session and designated 

the Local Government Records Act. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 

1248, at 4996. Section 205.002 of the Local Government 

Code, enacted as part of the Local Government Records Act, 

provides that "[a]ny local government record data may be 

stored electronically in addition to or instead of source 

documents in paper or other media," subject to the 

provisions of chapter 205 of the Local Government Code and 

rules adopted under it. This provision authorizes the 

storage of information on computer. Local Gov't Code 

5 205.001(l) (definition of "electronic storage"). I'Local 

government record data" is defined simply as any information 

that comprises. a local government record under law, 

regulation, rule of court, ordinance, or administrative 

procedure. Id. § 205.001(2). With exceptions not 

applicable here, "local government record data" is defined 

to mean 

any document, paper, letter, book, map, 

photograph, sound or video recording, 

microfilm, magnetic tape, electronic medium, 

or other information recording medium, 

regardless of physical form or characteristic 

and regardless of whether public access to it 

is open or restricted under the laws of the 

state, created or received bv a local 

aovernment or anv of its officers or 

emolovees vursuant to law, includina an 

ordinance, or in the tranSaCtiOn Of DUbliC 

business. (Emphasis added.) 

Id. § 201.003(8). 

The term "local government" includes, among other 

entities, a county, "including all district and precinct 

offices of a county." Id. 5 201.003(7). District and 

precinct offices such as the offices of district attorney, 

p. 6493 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 10 (JM-1224) 

-. 

district clerk, justice of the peace, and constable are 

classified as county offices for the purposes of the act. 

The subject of control and custody of information collected by county officers and stored electronically in a 

computer is addressed by the Local Government Records Act. 

The act identifies three agents of county government -- the 

commissioners court, Yecords management officers," and 

"custodians" -- and prescribes in careful detail their 

duties regarding the management and preservation of county 

records. See id. §§ 203.001 - 203.003, 203.021 - 203.023. 

The "records management officer" is either an elected 

county officer or a person, office, or position designated 

by the governing body to serve in that capacity. Seeid. 

55 201.003(14), 203.001, 203.025. The duties of the records 

management officer vary, depending on whether the particular 

county office or department is elective or nonelective, but 

in either case the officer is made chiefly responsible for 

the administration of a records management program and the 

protection and preservation of the records of county 

offices. See id. S§ 203.002, 203.023. The 18custodian1* of 

records is the appointed or elected public officer who under 

state constitution, state law, ordinance, or administrative 

policy is in charge of an office that creates or receives 

local government records. Id. § 201.003(2). 

A significant feature of the Local Government Records 

Act is its allocation of authority to develop and implement 

a records management program -- h, the policies, methods, 

and procedures for the management and preservation of county 

records. See id. §§ 203.005, 203.026. It is this aspect of 

the act that settles the general question of control and 

custody of information stored by computer. 

The commissioners court is responsible for establishing 

a records management program for nonelective county offices. 

See id. 55 203.021, 203.026. Elected county office& are 

designated the "records management officers" for their 

respective offices and are delegated preeminent authority to 

develop and administer the records management program for 

their offices. In addition, elected county officers are 

chiefly responsible for adopting records control schedules, 

preparing electronic storage authorization requests and 

records destruction requests, and preserving and protecting 

certain records of their offices. Id. 5 203.002. 

The elected county officer is given discretion to adopt 

specific records management procedures and techniques, so 

long as they are consistent with regulations promulgated by 

I, 

P. 6494 
, 

Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 11 (JR-1224) 

the State Library and Archives Commission. 

55 201.003(l), 203.002, 203.005(b). 

See+. 

The commission 

required to adopt standards and issue regulations for tFZ 

microfilming of local government records and the electronic 

storage of local government record data of permanent value.4 

Id. S§ 204.004, 205.003. It has discretion to adopt 

standards for the electronic storage of records with a 

retention period of at least ten years. Id. 5 205.003. 

These provisions specifically address certain kinds of 

records and limit the discretion of elected county officers 

to adopt management procedures for those records. We 

believe elected county officers have complete discretion in 

adopting records management procedures for computerized 

records or information not covered by these provisions -- 

l.e., any computerized record or information that does not 

have a retention period prescribed by law or that has a 

retention period of less than ten years. If the State 

Library and Archives Commission elects not to adopt standards for the electronic storage of records with retention 

periods of ten years or longer, we think elected county 

officers would have authority to adopt reasonable standards 

for those records as well. Moreover, we think elected 

F county officers have the implied authority to prescribe 

reasonable security and control measures for any information 

received by their offices and stored electronically, even 

those records covered by the commission's rules. Cf. 

Bullock v. Calvert, 480 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1972) (public 

officers have implied power to achieve power or object 

expressly granted): V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a, § 5(a) (described below). 

The Local Government Records Act anticipates that 

elected county officers will establish an independent 

records management program for their offices, but allows 

elected officers to delegate the administration of the 

program to the office established by the commissioners court 

for nonelective county offices. Id. § 203.005(g). Elected 

county officers may also delegate their responsibilities to 

the records management officer for nonelective offices in 

lieu of adopting an independent program. & Applied to 

Harris County, these provisions mean elected county officers 

4. A l*record of permanent value" is one for which the 

retention period issued by the commission (the time during 

which the record may not be destroyed) is given as 

permanent. Local Gov't Code § 201.003(10). 

P. 6495 
, 

Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 12 (JM-1224) 

may delegate the performance of their duties under the Local 

Government Records Act to JIMS if it is designated the 

records management officer for nonelective offices in Harris 

County. 

In the absence of such a delegation of authority by 

elected county officers, the role of the commissioners court 

in the management of the records of elected county officials 

is largely supportive. Id. 5 203.003 (commissioners court 

shall "promote," l'support,@' and "facilitate" the efficient 

and economical creation, maintenance, management, and 

preservation of the records of elective county offices). 

The primacy of elected county officers over the control 

and preservation of the records of their offices is also 

acknowledged in the Open Records Act. Section 5 of that act 

was amended by the bill enacting the Local Government 

Records Act to designate an elected county officer the 

"officer for public recordsl' of the office. V.T.C.S. art. 

6252-17a, 5 5(a). The officer for public records is 

responsible under section 5 for ensuring the 

protection, and 

accessibility, 

preservation of vublic records, includina 

records stored on computer. See: e.a,, 

Opinion JR-672 (1987). 

Attorney Generai 

These provisions clearly establish that control of 

information created or received by elected county officers5 

pursuant to law or in the transaction of public business 

remains with the elected officers even when the information 

is stored in a computer system that serves all 

offices. 

county 

These provisions do not depart from established 

law, but merely reflect principles that are 

entrenched in the law of this state. 

firmly 

&8 Familias Unidas v. 

Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 404 (5th Cir. 1980) (elected county 

officials in Texas hold "virtually absolute sway over the 

5. By its terms, the Local Government Records Act 

designates elected llcounty" officers as records management 

officers for their respective offices, omitting any 

reference to elected district and precinct officers. As we 

noted earlier, however, distri,ct and precinct offices of a 

county are treated as part of a county under the act. Id. 

5 201.003(7). By extension, when the act speaks of elective 

"county" offices, the legislature presumably intended to 

address elective district and precinct offices as well, at 

least where these offices store information on a computer 

system shared with county offices. 

P- 6496 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 13 (JM-1224) 

particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to 

[them] by state statute"). 

Where the duties of county officers are clearly 

delegated by statute, the commissioners court has no power 

to displace the authority of such officers by the creation 

of an agency to perform such duties. &g Aldrich v. Dallas 

County, 167 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1942, writ 

dism'd); Navarro County v. Tullos, 237 S.W. 982 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. - Dallas 1922, writ ref'd); Attorney General Opinion 

JM-1074 (1989). The commissioners court may not, moreover, 

confer on an agent or other officer authority the court may 

itself not exercise. Jones v. Veltmann, 171 S.W. 287 (Tex. 

Civ. App. - San Antonio 1914, writ ref'd). An elected 

county officer's assumption of the powers and duties 

conferred by the Local Government Records Act effectively 

bars the commissioners court or its agent from displacing 

the county officer from this position of responsibility. 

See. e.a., Attorney General Opinion JM-1074 (1989). 

Accordingly, in answer to your fourth question we 

conclude that elected county officers in Harris County are 

charged by statute with the control, management, and preserP vation of information created or received by their offices 

pursuant to law or in the transaction of public business, 

including information that is stored in the Harris County 

computer system. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a; Local Gov't Code 

55 203.002, 203.005, 205.002. Neither the commissioners 

court nor the agency created by it to manage the county 

computer system may deprive elected county, district, and 

precinct officers of this authority. Elected county 

officers may delegate certain of these duties to the office 

created by the commissioners court to manage the records of 

nonelective county offices. Ed. 5 2o3.oo5(g).6 

6. It should be notsd~that article 60.09 of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure authorizes the commissioners court to 

appoint a "local data advisory board" to assist and advise 

the court on matters relating to the collection and transfer 

of criminal history information at the county level. The 

membership of the board parallels the membership of JIMS. 

See Code Crim. Proc. art. 60.09(b). Because .the greater 

burden of compliance with chapter 60 falls on those officers 

eligible for appointment to the advisory board, we do not 

believe the authority to appoint advisory boards under 

article 60.09 constitutes supervening authority to manage 

(Footnote Continued) 

P. 6497 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 14 (JM-1224) 

5. What authority does the executive board 

of the Justice Information Management 

System (JIMS) or the commissioners court 

have to enforce any state and/or federal 

statutes relating to the 

dissemination of 

improper 

ariminal justice 

information and to require other county 

departments and/or officials to adhere to 

security and privacy guidelines 

promulgated by the executive board and/or 

commissioners court? 

This question presumably relates to the security policies adopted by the JIMS board described earlier in this 

opinion. 

As the discussion of the preceding question made clear, 

the primary responsibility to manage and control information 

received by elective county offices is with elected 

officers and, for nonelective offices, 

county 

with the commissioners court. Likewise, we think the duty to observe and 

comply with relevant laws governing access and dissemination 

of criminal justice information rests with elected 

officers for their respective 

county 

offices and with the 

commissioners court for nonelective offices. We have 

located no authority, of the Code of 

Criminal 

including chapter 60 

Procedure, that would generally designate the 

commissioners court as the agency responsible for the 

enforcement of 

criminal justice 

state or federal laws governing access to 

information stored in the county's computer 

system. It is not inconceivable, however, that the 

commissioners court could, with the cooperation of elected 

county officers, promulgate effective security policies that 

preserve the power of elected county officers to manage and 

control the information collected 

offices.7 

and generated by their 

,-~ 

(Footnote Continued) 

the computerized records of all county offices. It is 

therefore unnecessary to consider the effect of the possible 

appointment of the JIMS board 

board under this provision. 

as the local data advisory 

7. You have identified an obvious solution to the 

dilemma facing the county -- i.e., the installation of 

separate computer systems for each county office. 

Alternatively, the county might consider creating a separate 

(Footnote Continued) 

-\ 

1 

P. 6498 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 15 (JM-1224) 

6. lfhat liability may the JIMS exeautive 

board incur if information which is contained in a computer system owned by Harris county and whiah is used jointly by 

the Harris County Sheriff, the Harris 

County District Clerk, the Adult 

Probation Department, the Harris County 

Data Processing Department, and JIM8 and 

other county departments for the 

functions of said respective departments 

and offices and JIM8 is disseminated 

contrary to the security and privacy 

guidelines promulgated by the executive 

board, the commissioners court and/or 

other state and federal agencies? 

This question is not one that can properly be answered 

by this office. Its speculative and fact-bound nature makes 

it appropriate for your office to advise its clients 

the development of appropriate facts 

upon 

in particular cases. 

See Gov't Code 5 45.201. 

7. Does the JIM8 executive board and/or commissioners court have the authority to 

execute an agreement with the Texas 

Department of Public Safety regarding 

access to the National Crime Information 

Center (NCIC) operated by the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the 

Texas Crime Information Center (TCIC) 

operated by the Texas Department of 

Public Safety on behalf of Harris County 

and other local law enforcement agencies 

that have access to Harris County's 

computer? 

This question relates to the agreement executedby the 

JIMS board with the DPS described at the fore of this 

(Footnote Continued) 

computer system solely for the purpose of receiving and 

distributing criminal history information and information 

from the TLHTS and NCIC networks that is accessible only by 

the law enforcement agencies entitled to participate in the 

networks. The efficacy of a particular proposal, however, 

is a matter for the discretion of the commissioners court 

and is beyond the province of this office to decide. 

P. 6499 
, 

Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 16 (JM-1224) 

opinion. Assuming the DPS acted within 

selecting the Harris 

its authority in 

with the TLETS system, 

County computer as the county's link 

we think the commissioners court had 

the implied authority to execute the agreement in question. 

See aenerally, 35 D. Brooks, Countv and Soecial District Law 

5 5.13 (Texas Practice 1989). We also think the JIMS board 

was authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the 

commissioners court, assuming the board was appointed its 

agent for that purpose pursuant to section 262.001(a)(3) of 

the Local Government Code. wsenerallv 

Lumber Co . v. Hutchinson County, 88 S.W. ;12 

Jackson -Foxworth 

1905, no writ). 

(Tex. Civ. App. 

8. 

9. 

May the county enter into agreements with 

public and non-public user8 for dial-up, 

direct computer access to records contained in the county's computer without 

the ooneent of the \custodian/s* of the 

original paper or microfilm/microfiche of 

said records? 

If the answer to question 8 is yea, is 

the \custodian* responsible and liable 

for fees which may be due for such services? Who is liable if the fees are not 

collected for access to and/or copies of 

such records? 

These questions are in reference to a program 

authorized by~the commissioners court under which private 

parties, typically law firms, are allowed direct access to 

the county computer. The firms 

information maintained by 

are granted access to 

the district clerk on civil and 

family law cases in the district courts. Access to criminal 

and juvenile case information is not authorized. The 

private users receive access essentially on a subscription 

basis, paying the county fees for the training of the ukersl 

employees, the assignment of sign-on codes;8nd the amount 

of time logged on the county system. The users supply their 

own equipment and dedicated telephone lines. 

You note the apparent absence of 

izing the program you inquire about.8 

law expressly authorIn addition "dial-up" 

8. Sections 51.801 through 51.807 of the Government 

Code authorize and govern the electronic filing of certain 

(Footnote Continued) 

P. 6500 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 17 (JM-1224) 

,- 

systems are particularly vulnerable to and 

manipulation by computer hackers 

entry 

and 

security 

require additional 

controls. a Agranoff, Curb on Technoloav: 

Liabilitv for Failure to Protect Comvuterized Data Aaainst 

Unauthorized Access 5 Santa Clara Computer & 

Technology Law Journ; at 263, 280-86 (1989). 

High 

We have previously determined that elected county, 

district, and precinct officers, rather than the commissioners court or the JIMS department, are given the duty to 

manage and control the information received and generated by 

their offices and stored on computer. In the absence of 

statutory authority, the commissioners court is not, in our 

opinion, authorized to grant members of the public access to 

the computerized records of elective 

precinct offices.9 

county, district, or 

question, 

In light of our answer to your eighth 

it is unnecessary to answer your final question. 

SUMMARY 

Elected county, district, and precinct 

officers in Harris County are charged by 

statute with the control, management, and 

preservation of information created or 

received by their offices pursuant to law or 

in the transaction of public business, 

including information that is stored in the 

Harris County computer. V.T.C.S. art. 

6252-17a; Local Gov't Code §§ 203.002, 

203.005, 205.002. Neither the commissioners 

court nor an agency created by it to manage 

the county's computer system may deprive 

(Footnote Continued) 

documents in the office of the district clerk, but we are 

unaware of any law that authorizes the electronic retrieval 

by private persons of information contained in documents 

filed with the district clerk. 

9. You suggest that "dial-up*' access to the records of 

county offices may be permissible if consent is given by the 

county officers whose records are affected and provided no 

confidential information is made available to the 

subscribers. It is unnecessary to decide this issue at this 

time, since your question refers to the "county" (which we 

interpret to mean the commissioners court) and the facts you 

stipulate refer to actions taken by the commissioners court 

rather than a specific county officer. 

p. 6501 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 18 (JM-1224) 

elected county, district, and precinct 

officers of such statutory authority. 

Elected county officers may delegate certain 

of these statutory duties to the office 

created by the commissioners court to manage 

the records of nonelective county offices. 

Local Govtt Code g 203.005(g). 

Neither the commissioners court nor the 

agency created by it to manage the county 

computer system is generally authorized to 

enforce state or federal laws concerning the 

dissemination of criminal history information. The commissioners court has the 

implied authority to contract on behalf of 

the county with the Department of Public 

Safety to receive access to the Texas Law 

Enforcement Telecommunications System. The 

commissioners court may not authorize private 

users to obtain "dial-up" access to the 

records of elected county, district, or 

precinct officers that are stored on the 

county computer system. 

Very truly yo 

3 

Jy M MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

LOU MCCREARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Steve Aragon 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 6502