Gen. 111 111

1 The MVA has authority to suspend or revoke a d ri ver’s lic ense under many other ci rcumstan ces, as well. These are not pertinent to your in qu ir y. PUB LIC INF ORMATI ON ACT
V EHICLE L AWS

) L ICENSI NG

) D RIVER ’ S R IGHT TO O BTAIN R ECORDS R ELATED TO C ONTINUED F ITNES S F OR L ICENSI NG
March 14, 1997

The Honorable Kumar P. Barve House of Delegates You have request ed our opini on whether the Maryland Pub lic Informati on Act (“PIA”) ent itl es a dri ver to ce rtain informat ion relat ed to the driver’s conti nued fitness fo r lic en sin g. S pe cifica lly, youask whether a driver is enti tled to obtain ( i) r ecords r eflect ing the source of

a referral to the M otor V ehicl e Administr ation t hat results in the MVA’s review of a dr iver’s fit ness to hold a license and (ii) a report by t

he MV A’s Medical Advisor y Board conc erning the driver’s fi tness. Our opin ion is as foll ows: A driver is gener ally

entitled under the PIA to ob tain MV A re cords related to a re view o f the driver’s fitne ss, inclu din g an y repo rt of the M edic al A dvi sory B oar d. T h e driv er wo uld n ot be e ntitled, ho we ver, to re cord s reflec tin g th e identity of a refer

ral s ource under circumstances in which the sour ce is pro per ly dee me d co nfid entia l.

I Background The MV A ha s authority to suspend o r revoke the driver’s license of an indi vidual who is “an unfit [or] un safe . .. driver of a motorvehic le.” §16-206(a) (1)(i i) of t he Transport ation ( “TR”) Articl e, Maryland Code. 1 For example, a physi cal o r mental conditi on that

impa irs an in dividu al’s ab ilityto dri ve might make the112 [82 O p. Att’y

2 Special provisions apply to suspensions based on the effect of an individual’s epilepsy. TR §16-208(a) (3) through (7). i ndividual“un fit” for c ont inu ed lic ens ing

. See Motor Vehi cl e Admin. v. Mohler , 318 Md. 219 , 227, 567 A.2d 929 (1990) . The MV A is pr ohibi te d fr om i ss ui ng adr iv er ’s li cen se to som e on e “[w]ho is una ble to exercise reaso nable contro l over a mo tor veh icle due to di se as e o r p hy si ca l d is ab il it y.. .” orwho se dr iv in g, th e MVA has “good caus e” to belie ve, “would be i nimicalto publi c safety or we lfar e.” TR §16 -10 3.1( 5) a nd ( 6). Under TR §16-207(a)(1) (ii ), t he MVA may require a dri ver “to su bm it to reexaminati on ... if .. . the [MVA] has good cause to be lieve that t he lice nsee is unfit, unsafe, or other wise not qual ifie d to be li censed.”
O cc as io na lly, th e MVA’ s “good cause to be lieve that [ a] lice nsee is unf

it

.. .” deriv es fr om a report from someone who has observedthe individual’s drivi ng practi ces. I ndeed, the inf ormation mightcome from a relative or someone else close to the driver. The informant

might provi de informat ion to t he MV A out of

a fear that the driver ’s det erior ated heal th could l ead to a t ragic a ccident

if the driv er co ntin ued to d rive

. Under TR §16-20 8(a)(2), “after n otic e a nd h ea ri ng, th e [ MVA] may suspendfor an indefinite peri od the license or pri vilege of any indivi dual who cannotdrive s afely because of hi s phys ical or mental con ditio n.” 2 The informati on from the sour ce mightcaus e the MVA to r eview the situation and potenti ally begin a suspensi o n proceedi ng. Prior to making this det ermin ation, th e M VA wo uld ordin arily refer t

he matter

to it s Medical Advisor y B oard for an adv isory o pin ion . TR §16 -11 8(c )(1). The Board consis ts of “qual ifie d physi cians and optometrists” who advise t

he MVA “regarding the phy sicaland mental condition of individ uals wh o see k to d rive on high wa ys in this State. ” TR §16- 118(a)(1). In carrying out its res pon sibilities, the B oard may ob tain in formati on from the driv er’s ph ysician an d interv iew th e driv er
. See COM AR 11.17.03.03. If, bas ed on the advi ce of the Board, the MVA susp ends a licen se ind efinit ely on grounds of i ll hea lth, the driv er h as a righ t to a h earin g un der TR Title 12, S ubt itle 2

.Gen. 111 113
II Status of Refe rral Lett ers The gene ral rule u nder the P IA is th at a req uester is entitled to inspect “anypublic r ecord” i n the cust ody of a gover nmental en tity. §10-613 (a) of the State Government ( “SG”) Articl e, Maryl and Code

. A letter to the M VA expr essing conc ern ab out so meo ne’s f itness to con tinu e dr ivin g is a “pu blic r eco rd.” SG §10 -61 1(f )(1)( i).
Ne verthe le s s, not every “public record” i s avail able for inspection. Some records mu st be withhel d because a pr ovisi on in othe r law o r the PI A mandates confidentiality ; other s may be with held beca use th e PIA gran ts discre tion to th e cus todian to wit hho ld a p artic ular kin d of reco rd.
An example of a discretionary exem ption is SG §10-61 8(f), which permits a custodi an to den y in spection of investigatory records. Specifi call y, certa in identifie d agencies (the Att orney G enera l, a State ’s Attor ney, a city or

county attor ney, a pol ic e depa rtmen t, or a sher iff) may wit hho ld “r eco rds o f inv estig ation s.” Other agencies may withhol d “an investigator y fi le compil ed for any o ther law enforcement , judi cial , corr ecti onal, or prosec ut io n pur pos e.” SG §10 -618 (f)(1)(ii ). Wh en, un der the autho rity discuss ed in Part

I above, t

he MV A compiles informat ion as par t of a process to decide whether to sus pend a driver ’s li cense, it has crea ted “ an in ves tigat ory file for [a] l aw enforc em ent ... p urp ose .”
An agen cy’s auth ority to with hold an inv estigato ry file is limi ted, however, when the r equester is a “per son in i nteres t”:
A cus to di an m ay d en y in sp ec tio n b y a person i n inter est onl y t o the ext ent that the inspection would: (i) interfere with a valid and proper l aw enforcement proceeding; (ii) deprive another pe rson of a right to a fair t rialor an impartial a djudication; (iii) consti tute an unwarranted invasi on of perso nal priv acy;114 [82 O p. Att’y (iv) disclose the ide ntity of a confidential sourc e; (v) discl ose an inv esti gative techn iq ue or procedure; (vi) prejudi ce an inves tigation; or (vii) enda nger the li fe or ph ysical safe ty of an individ ual.
SG §10-618(f) (2). A driver whose fi tness f or li censing i s under inves tigati on is a “pers on in interest” for p urpo ses of a requ est to review the inv estig ator y file. S G § 10- 611 (e)(1 ). See g ener ally Mayorand City Council v. Maryland Committee Against t he Gu n Ban , 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993). Therefore, the MVA may with hold from the driv er on ly those po rtio ns of the file th at, if discl osed, would resul t in any of th e effects lis ted in SG §10- 618(f)(2). The only likely bas is under SG §10-618(f) (2) for

denyi ng the driver acce ss to the referra l letter is wh en the autho r of the letter is “a confident ial s ource.” “While the gove rnment is not entitled to a presumpti on of confident iali ty, generic circumstances may exist from which a court can find an i mpliedas su ra nc e o f c on fid en tia lity. In essence, a source may be consider ed confidential . .. i f the informa nt’s relation to t he circ umstances at

issue s upports an infere nce of confident iality .” Co field v. C it

y of L aGrange , 913 F. Supp. 608, 618 (D.D.C. 1996) (ci tati on o mitte d). See g ener ally United Stat

es Dep’t of

Justi ce v. Landano , 508 U .S. 165 (199 3).
We think i t reas onable, for example, for the MVA to treat as “a confident ial source” a r elat ive or cl os e frie nd of the driver who, though paine d by the n eed to do so , writes th e M VA in an attem pt to ad dress the probl em of a loved one who may not recogniz e that

h e or she is no l ong er fit

to d rive. T he inform ant w ould reaso nably expectco nfide nti alit

y, so as to pr eserve t

he tie s of int imacythat mightwell be fray ed or broken if t he driver knew the refer

ral s ource. To quote the Co

fieldcase ci ted above, “the in form ant’s re lation to the circumst ances at

issue su ppo rts an in fere nce of c onfiden tiality.” Mo reover, a breach of confi dentia lit y, once general ly

known, wo uld likely impair t

he M VA ’s ability to ob tain driver s’ inf ormation f

romGen. 111 115

re latives or fri ends in t he future . If, however, the M VA canno t identi fythese or

other circumstance s render ing the ref erralsource “a confident ial sourc e,” then the driv er w ould be enti tled under the P IA to o btain the r efe rral le tter.
III

Status of MedicalReport The MarylandVehicle Law conta ins a sp ecial co nfide ntiality provisi on applic able t o the records of the Medical Advisory Board: (1) The records of

the M edical Ad visory Board: (i) are co nfide ntial; (ii) may be disclose d only on cou rt order; and (iii) may be used on ly to determi ne the qual ific ations of an indi vidual to drive. (2) A person may

not use thes e records for any other pur

pose. As we read it , thi s provis ion is meant to sa feguard the privac y of a driver wh ose sta tus is under revi ew by the Boar d. Because t he Board ’s records are intende d to be used “to det ermine the qu alif icat ions of an indi vidual to drive, ” and because t he d river i s entitledto a h earing onthat ve ryissue, it i s most unl ikely that t he General Assembly intendedthe co nfide ntiality command in TR §16- 118 (d)(1)(i) to bar access by the driver . Therefo re, we do not regard this provisi on as “other

law” to which t

he driver ’s pres umptive ri ght of access under

the PIA must y ield.
No r, in our vi ew, would any e xemption i n the PIA or dinaril y preventthe dri ver from obta ining access t o the Board’s report about that driver. Although the r eport i s undoubtedl y par t of the M VA ’s investigatory file, none of th e gro unds in SG §10-618(f)(2) for116 [82 O p. Att’y

3 If the Boar

d’s report identified a confidential source, that portion may be re dacted.

4 SG §10-617 (b)(2)refers inartfu lly t o an indivi dual’s acce ss to medicalrecords under

Title 4, Subtitle 3 of the Health-General Article. This law generally

allows a person in interest to ins pect his or her own medical records; the exceptions in this law are not pertinent here. denyi ng access by

a personin intere st cou ld ordinarily be asserted. 3 Another PIA provisi on, SG §10-617(b), gene rally r equires denial of “inspection of the part of a publ ic rec ord that cont ai ns m e dical or psyc hologica l inform ation a bou t an ind ividua l ....” The p erson in interest, how ever, is e ntitled to in spec t t h is i nformati on. SG §10- 617(b)(2). 4

IV Conclusion
In s um mary, it is ou r opin ion tha t a drive r wh ose f itness to drive is under

revi e w b ecau se of

the driv er’s he alth co ndition is gene rally en tit led to ins pect the MV A’s records pertaining to t hat re vi ew, including a report of the Medical Advisory Board. The driver may no t inspec t the letter th at initi ate d the MVA’s re vi ew, how ever, if the lett er woul d reveal the ide ntit y of a conf

identi al sou rce. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Jack Sch wa rtz Chief Counsel Opinions and Advic e