Police Patrol Security Systems, Inc. v. Prince George's County, 378 Md. 702

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that a Prince George's County ordinance could not independently make alarm-registration information confidential for purposes of the Maryland Public Information Act. The court concluded that the county's initial justification for withholding the records was legally insufficient and remanded for a new determination under the MPIA, including consideration of a 2002 public-security-documents amendment.

Holdings

1. A county ordinance may not make a public record privileged or confidential for purposes of the Maryland Public Information Act unless a qualifying source of law identified by the Act, such as a State or federal statute, regulation with the force of law, court rule, court order, or constitutional provision, does so or authorizes the exemption. Prince George's County's ordinance therefore was not a legally sufficient basis for denying Police Patrol's request.
2. The Maryland Public Information Act contains no discrete general 'personal information,' 'unwarranted invasion of privacy,' or catchall public-interest exemption. A custodian must identify a specific statutory or other legally authorized basis before withholding a public record.
3. The 2002 amendment to Maryland Public Information Act section 10-618(j), which permits discretionary withholding of specified public-security records when disclosure would jeopardize security, facilitate terrorist-attack planning, or endanger physical safety, applied to Police Patrol's still-pending request for current information.
4. The court could not determine the County's discretionary entitlement to withhold the records under the 2002 amendment in the first instance. The matter had to be remanded so the County could make a new determination under the current Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the County's local alarm-registration ordinance could make the requested records confidential or privileged under the Maryland Public Information Act and thereby require their nondisclosure.
2. Whether the County's asserted personal-information, public-interest, or privacy theories supplied an independent basis for withholding the records.
3. Whether the 2002 Maryland Public Information Act amendment concerning public-security documents applied to the pending request and required the County to reconsider it.
4. Whether the appellate court could affirm on an alternative ground that required the County to exercise discretion in the first instance.

Disposition

vacated