of the phrase “information in a DNA record” the legislature in section 411.15303) prohibited the release of a broader category of information than DNA records included in the state DNA database. Id. § 411.153(b). We therefore agree with the City that section 411.153(b) protects from disclosure information in a DNA record, even if that DNA record has not been forwarded to the director for inclusion in the state DNA database. See id. Were we to adopt the Star-Telegram’s interpretation of section 411.153, we would be left with the absurd result that only the DNA records of the convicted offender would be exempt from disclosure under the PIA. We do not believe this is what the legislature intended. See University of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 356 & n. 20 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). The City’s construction of section 411.153 is
holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results holding that virginia courts must avoid absurd results recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results