A PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUEST MADE FOR FUTURE RECORDS
IS PROPER UNDER A.R.S. § 39-122.01
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled
recently that a public records
request that is made for future
records as they become available is
proper under A.R.S. § 39-122.01.
In West Valley View Inc. v.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,
the West Valley View, a suburban
Phoenix newspaper, had been
accustomed to receiving press
releases from the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s press office through an
e-mail list serve. The Sheriff’s
Office decided to remove the
newspaper from its e-mail list serve
after becoming upset at the
newspaper’s apparent unwillingness
to use the press releases in the
manner that the Sheriff’s Office had
hoped. In response, the West Valley
View formally requested all press
releases be provided to them as they
become available. The Sheriff’s
Office failed to respond to the
letter and the paper sued the
Sheriff’s Office for violation of
the Arizona Public Records Law.
With respect to the ongoing public
records request for future press
releases, the Sheriff’s Office
argued that the Public Records Law
does not provide any authority for
an ongoing request as was filed by
the newspaper. The Court disagreed.
A.R.S. § 39-121.01(d)(1) states,
“any person may request or examine
or be furnished copies, printouts or
photographs of any public record
during regular office hours or may
request that the custodian mail a
copy of any public record not
otherwise available on the public
bodies’ website to the requesting
person.” The Court said that the
language “be furnished copies” in
the statute does not require the
submission of a separate request for
each successive record when it is
generated when the requester has
submitted a clearly articulated and
defined category of records that a
public agency creates over time.
Originally the Superior Court had
denied the request for attorney’s
fees but the Appeals Court stated
that the denial of the public
records request by the Sheriff’s
Office was “petty” and that “the
Sheriff’s Office’s utter refusal to
respond to the newspaper’s ongoing
requests for copies of new releases
and its stubborn persistence in its
position that it need not comply
with the requests was ‘in bad faith’
or ‘arbitrary or capricious…”. On
that basis, the Court awarded
attorney’s fees to the newspaper.
THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A
PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL
OPINION.
