FOI

• Engel Brubaker

  P2008-010 · Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner · Privacy complaint regarding police database

  Engel Brubaker (Re)

  Order P2008-010
  Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner — Adjudicator Christina Gauk | September 30, 2010

  ---

  Background

  An Edmonton law firm, Engel Brubaker, created an electronic database containing names, regimental numbers, and misconduct information about Edmonton Police Service officers. The database included court transcripts, disciplinary decisions, newspaper articles, complaint letters, and synopses of alleged misconduct incidents. The firm used this information to defend clients against criminal charges and shared it with other lawyers upon request.

  An unnamed police officer, backed by the Edmonton Police Association, filed a privacy complaint arguing the database violated Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The officer claimed the firm was improperly collecting, using, and disclosing officers' personal information without consent.

  Issues

  1. Whether information about police officers' work performance constitutes their "personal information" under PIPA
  2. Whether the law firm had authority to collect, use, and disclose this information without consent
  3. Whether certain records fell outside PIPA's scope as court records or publicly available information

  Personal Information vs. Work Performance

  The Commissioner made a crucial distinction: information solely about how police officers performed their work duties isn't personal information when collected for defending criminal charges. However, information that's "intertwined" with personal matters — like disciplinary proceedings, penalties, or highly publicized incidents — has a "dual aspect" and counts as personal information.

  The reasoning: when information about an officer's conduct is used to defend someone against charges, it's relevant because of what the officer did, not because of who the officer is personally. But once that same information involves consequences to the officer (discipline, criminal charges, civil liability), it becomes personal to them.

  Authority to Collect Without Consent

  The Commissioner found the law firm could collect officers' personal information without consent in three situations: (1) when the information was publicly available, (2) when it came from court records, or (3) when collection was "reasonable for the purposes of an investigation or legal proceeding" under sections 14(d), 17(d), and 20(m) of PIPA.

  Crucially, the firm could maintain the database for future defences because it's "highly likely" that information about how an officer performed their duties will become relevant in future criminal cases where that officer is involved. The Commissioner rejected the idea that firms must wait until a specific case arises before collecting relevant evidence.

  Key Takeaway

  Law firms can build databases of police conduct information for criminal defence work, but they must be selective and responsible about what goes in.

  The decision confirms that preparing for criminal defence work includes gathering information that might be useful in future cases. However, firms cannot include "non-credible allegations or other frivolous material" and must ensure the database remains secure and accessible only to those who need it for legitimate legal proceedings.

  Read the decision

← All topics