Director denies appeal seeking BCI audit reports, finds quality-control records fall within division-file protections

Two petitioners asked the Department of Government Records for audit reports or redacted summaries from the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) showing whether specified police departments were in compliance with BCI policies. Petitioners argued those audit reports (or executive summaries) are public records and could be redacted to remove personally identifiable information. "We are seeking the audit reports that tell us whether the police departments listed... have been in compliance with those policies," petitioner Nate Carlisle said, adding that redaction or segregation could protect individual data while allowing public oversight.

DPS/BCI counsel and managers explained the agency now uses an electronic system called PEAK Performance to run quality-control checks and questionnaires; the system collects snapshots and triggers follow-up corrections but does not generate consolidated statistical exports or a standalone public report for each audit. BCI representatives said many audit materials are integrated into division files and that some content includes data protected under the statute covering criminal-history and division-file dissemination. Manager Miss Biesinger described the process and said the system lacks an automated reporting feature that would list statewide error counts; she said BCI can describe common themes but cannot produce a statistical export from PEAK. Director Pearson concluded the statute’s language covering "information from division files" can be read broadly and, given the integration here, denied the appeal. He said a written decision would follow within seven business days and that the decision could be appealed to district court.