U Memo 17-1Posted on Sep 23, 2016 in Informal Opinions - UIPA Opinions
U Memo 17-1
September 23, 2016
Presentence Investigation Report
Requester made a written request under Part III of the UIPA for a copy of his presentence investigation report (PSI). The Department of Public Safety (PSD) denied access, and Requester filed this appeal. After the appeal was opened, PSD sent a letter to Requester stating that it would provide Requester with a copy of the PSI after his payment of copying and postage fees of $20.12. However, subsequent to receipt of Requester’s payment, PSD declined to provide a copy of the PSI while it awaited advice from the Department of the Attorney General (AG).
Months after receiving the AG’s advice, PSD informed OIP that Requester was “already provided PSI by AG” and did not indicate that anything had been redacted from the PSI prior to disclosure. However, Requester then informed OIP that “[t]he AG’s office has provided me with nothing.”
Because PSD claimed that it, through its attorney, provided Requester with a copy of his PSI, any argument now against disclosure would be considered waived. As Requester asserted he did not receive the copy sent by the AG, OIP concluded that PSD should provide Requester with another copy within ten business days.
PSD apparently received Requester’s payment, but was unable to verify whether Requester’s payment was processed or returned. Consequently, OIP advised PSD not to charge Requester for the additional copy of his PSI.