Public information request includes employee calls, texts from personal devices

A school district received a request under the Texas Public Information Act to produce "detailed phone records, including, but not limited to, text messages, photo messages and inbound and outbound calls ... on any device on which district business is conducted, redacted to exclude personal phone calls and any other information made confidential under state law." The request included school-related phone calls and texts from employees' personal devices.

The district requested an opinion from the attorney general, asking whether it was required to produce this information. The attorney general ruled that, to the extent the telephone calls at issue were made in connection with the transaction of public business of the district, they must be disclosed, even if the calls were made on an employee's personal cellphone. The district sued the attorney general to challenge this ruling. 

The district court and court of appeals both agreed with the attorney general, and the district appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. In requesting that the Supreme Court review the decision, the district argued in part that that disclosing the records would violate the constitutional privacy rights of the district's representatives.

The Supreme Court declined to consider the case, which means that the decision of the court of appeals stands and the information must be released. 

One of the Texas Supreme Court justices wrote an opinion, explaining his decision. In that opinion, the justice acknowledged that it is easy to imagine how searching through an employee's phone for requested information could infringe on constitutionally protected rights and unduly burden public servants. An employee's phone may contain confidential information about a person's medical history, financial transactions, or personal life that justifiably should be kept private. Additionally, requiring government employees and volunteers to give up all expectations of digital privacy would be a powerful disincentive to public service.

However, in this case the justice noted that the request specifically excluded "personal phone calls and any other information made confidential under state law," and that therefore the request itself did not seek that private information. He also noted that the district does not necessarily have to search and seize employee phones in order to respond to the request, since every employee of the district has an obligation to protect public information and could simply produce the information as directed by the district. Finally, the justice noted that a district can always choose to provide its employees with a phone to use specifically for work.