|
EVERYTHING ON A GOVERNMENT AGENCY’S COMPUTER
IS NOT NECESSARILY A PUBLIC RECORD
The Arizona Supreme Court, in
Griffis v Pinal County, sets forth a two
step procedure for determining whether
documents are subject to disclosure as
public records.
The first step, which seldom is at issue, is
determining whether the document falls into
the broad category of a “public record.” The
court is to perform an in camera
fact-specific review of the document
comparing the nature and purpose of the
document with an official’s or agency’s
activities to determine whether the required
nexus exists between the two to warrant
characterizing the document as a public
document. The party claiming that the
disputed documents are not public records
bears the burden of establishing its claim.
However, the mere fact that a document is
located on a government-owned computer (or
other government property) is insufficient
to make the document a public record.
If a document falls within the scope of the
public records statute, then the second step
is applied - a balancing test to determine
whether privacy, confidentiality, or the
best interests of the state outweigh the
policy in favor of disclosure.
The Griffis case involved a newspaper’s
public records request to review emails that
were on a County owned computer system that
the author (the ex-County Manager) claimed
were purely personal in nature. The trial
court held everything on the County computer
system was presumptively open to public
inspection, but offered an in camera
inspection to allow Griffis to overcome the
presumption. Griffis declined the offer and
appealed the decision. The court of appeals
reversed holding that personal emails were
not public records. The Supreme Court held
the emails were not presumptively public
records and remanded to the trial court to
conduct an in camera review of the emails.
The Arizona Supreme Court further reiterated
three alternative definitions of public
records: A public record is one “made by a
public officer in pursuance of a duty, the
immediate purpose of which is to disseminate
information to the public, or to serve as a
memorial of official transactions for public
reference”; a record that is “required to be
kept, or necessary to be kept in the
discharge of a duty imposed by law or
directed by law to serve as a memorial and
evidence of something written, said or
done”; or any “written record of
transactions of a public officer in his
office, which is a convenient and
appropriate method of discharging his
duties, and is kept by him as such, whether
required by . . . law or not.”
THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL
OPINION.
|
