Opinion ID: 2560048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ireland's PIA Request

Text: Maryland's PIA states that a custodian shall permit a person . . . to inspect any public record [6] at any reasonable time except as otherwise provided by law. Md. Code (1984, 2009 Repl. Vol.), § 10-613 of the State Government (SG) Article. An individual asserts this right to access by submitting a written application to the custodian of records, unless an exception applies. See SG § 10-614(a)(1). The recipient of the application must verify (1) that he or she is in fact a custodian of the record, see SG § 10-614(a)(3), and (2) that the document in question exists, see SG § 10-614(a)(4). If these two requirements are met, the custodian of records must then either grant or deny the application within thirty days of receiving the initial application. See SG § 10-614(b). A grant of the application requires the custodian of records to produce the public record within 30 days of receipt of the application. See SG § 10-614(b)(2). On the other hand, a denial requires the custodian of records to immediately notify the applicant and, within ten business days, provide a written statement to the applicant giving the legal reasons for the agency's failure to disclose and advising the applicant of his or her right for review of the denial. See SG § 10-614(b)(3). The PIA permits applicants to broadly seek judicial review whenever they are denied inspection of a public record by filing a complaint in the appropriate circuit court jurisdiction. See SG § 10-623(a). We have reiterated on numerous occasions that the PIA reflects the need for wide-ranging access to public records, and therefore, the statute should be construed in favor of disclosure for the benefit of the requesting party. See, e.g., Hammen v. Balt. County Police Dep't, 373 Md. 440, 457, 818 A.2d 1125, 1135 (2003) ([T]he provisions of the [PIA] reflect the legislative intent that citizens of the State of Maryland be accorded wide-ranging access to public information concerning the operation of their government.) (emphasis in original); Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 81, 721 A.2d 196, 199 (1998) (same); Fioretti, 351 Md. at 73, 716 A.2d at 262 (same); A.S. Abell Pub. Co. v. Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 32, 464 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1983) (same). The PIA defines a custodian as someone who is the official custodian or any other authorized individual who has physical custody and control of a public record. SG § 10-611(c). The official custodian is 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. SG § 10-611(d). Here, Rowley served as warden of NBCI at the time of Ireland's request. The term warden falls within the definition of managing official in the Correctional Services Article. See Md.Code (1999, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 1-101(k) of the Correctional Services (CS) Article (defining Managing official as the administrator, director, warden, superintendent, sheriff, or other individual responsible for the management of a correctional facility.) (emphasis added). It follows, then, that as the individual responsible for managing NBCI, and therefore maintaining records at the institution, Rowley qualified as the official custodian of records under the PIA. As the official custodian of records, Rowley incurred the same duties and responsibilities as a physical custodian of records under the PIA. The PIA requires an applicant to submit a written application to the custodian[,] § 10-614(a)(1); it does not limit requests only to the physical custodian. Similarly, the definition of a custodian does not differentiate between physical custodian and official custodian. See SG § 10-611(c). Therefore, under the Act, Rowley's status as the official custodian of records does not alter his burden to respond to information requests of the individual departments of NBCI. Nonetheless, Shearin maintains that Rowley did not withhold information because he merely redirected Ireland to more appropriate custodians as required under Section 10-614(a)(3). See SG § 10-614(a)(3) (If the individual to whom the application is submitted is not the custodian of the public record . . . the individual shall give the applicant . . . if known: [1] the name of the custodian; and [2] the location or possible location of the public record.). [7] This argument ignores the plain language of the PIA, which permits referral only if the individual to whom the application is submitted is not the custodian of the public record[.] SG § 10-614(a)(3) (emphasis added). Because Rowley is a custodian of the requested documents, he was not authorized to direct Ireland to other NBCI departments. Regardless of whether collection from another department within Rowley's own agency would have been more expeditious or appropriate, the burden to collect and assemble the requested records falls squarely on the State rather than the applicant. In short, Rowley could only grant or deny Ireland's application because of his status as the official custodian of records. The legislative intent of the PIA only bolsters our rationale. Like other statutes, the PIA involves a tradeoff in which state and local agencies incur additional expense for the benefit of a private right of access to government records. The broad remedial purpose of the Act places a larger burden on state agencies to organize and provide access to information at the request of any individual desirous of such records. The PIA, itself, alludes to this remedial nature when it states: To carry out the right [of access to government records] . . . 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 inspection. SG § 10-612(b). If we were to adopt Shearin's logic, a state agency could unduly prolong an applicant's request by continually rerouting the requesting party through each level of bureaucracy. This would not only multiply the cost and delay of the requesting party, but it would also contradict the spirit of disclosure underlying the overall statutory scheme. See, e.g., Hammen, 373 Md. at 456-57, 818 A.2d at 1135 (ordering disclosure of surveillance videotapes prior to administrative hearing because doing otherwise would thwart the very purpose of the []PIA). In the context of a PIA request like this one, where the circumstances require that the Court elect to place the heavier burden on either the requesting party or the government custodian of records, the intent of the General Assembly dictates that we choose the latter. We do caution, however, that this burden does not obligate the custodian of records to gather the requested documents so that they will be available for inspection at a centralized location, especially if doing so would interfere[] with official business. Cf. SG § 10-613(b) (additional rules necessary to protect public records and to prevent unnecessary interference with official business). Rather, the PIA directs each official custodian to adopt reasonable rules or regulations that . . . govern timely production and inspection of a public record. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has issued the following guidelines: []Time of Inspection. A custodian shall make a public record available for inspection or copying during the agency's normal working day. []Place of Inspection. A custodian shall require that the public record be inspected or copied at the location where the public record is maintained, unless the custodian determines that another location would better serve the needs of the individual inspecting or copying the public record or of the Department. Md.Code Regs. 12.11.02.06(B)-(C) (2010) (emphasis added). Here, Rowley would have complied with the PIA if he had timely directed his subordinate departments to produce the requested records for inspection rather than directing Ireland to resubmit his request to those entities. Understanding that Ireland was incarcerated, Rowley was also at liberty to mail copies of the requested records at Ireland's expense. See Md.Code Regs. 12.11.02.06(E)(3)(e) (2010) (If a copy . . . of a public record is mailed or delivered to the applicant, [the official custodian shall charge] for the actual cost of postage or delivery[.]). [8]