|
APPEALS COURT
EXAMINES PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ E-MAILS
IN LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAW
On August 4,
2006, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division
Two, issued its opinion in Stanley Griffis v.
Pinal County and Phoenix Newspapers related to
personal electronic mail messages sent or
received by a government employee. The question
was whether those e-mails constitute “public
records”, presumptively open to public
inspection under the public records laws. The
trial court had held that the personal e-mails
were public records simply because the e-mails
were transmitted on, and were retained in, a
government-owned computer system.
The appellate court disagreed and reversed,
stating that the nature and purpose of the
electronic mail, not the location of the
electronic mail, should determine whether the
record is public.
The background of the case is that in early
December 2005 Pinal County placed its
then-county manager on administrative leave to
investigate allegations that he had purchased
weapons with funds belonging to the County
sheriff without obtaining the sheriff’s
approval. The Phoenix Newspapers (PNI) made a
public records request for all incoming and
outgoing e-mail messages from October 1 to
December 2, 2005. In responding to the public
records request, the county withheld or redacted
several hundred of Griffis’ e-mails that the
County deemed personal in nature. The categories
of records withheld or redacted were: personal
e-mail addresses, personal telephone numbers,
private citizen names and e-mail addresses,
personal benefits or health account information,
bank account numbers, personal issues, personal
e-mails, ongoing litigation, homeland security
information and attorney/client privileged
communications. PNI responded that only three of
those categories of information should be
excluded from the personnel records on the basis
of privacy – personnel/health benefits, bank
account numbers and attorney/client
communications. The remaining had to be
released, PNI argued.
The Appellate Court’ opinion focused on the case
of Salt River Pima–Maricopa Indian Community v.
Rogers, 168 Ariz. 531,815P. 2d 900 (1991) in
which the Arizona Supreme Court held that the
mere fact that the Indian Community had records
in its possession did not conclusively show that
the record was a “public record” under the
public records law. The court said “it is the
nature and purpose of the document, not the
place where it is kept, that determines its
status.” In that case, a check distribution list
that was not made by a public officer “in
pursuance of a duty” was not a public record.
The Court also reasoned that the Community’s
treasurer did not have a statutory duty to keep
the check distribution list, did not compile the
list, did not use the list and did not even
consult the list in performing his duties.
In Griffis, the Court reiterated the Salt River
Pima–Maricopa Indian Community test that it is
the nature and purpose of the document, not the
place where it is kept that determines its
status. The court held that the content of the
e-mails in question was merely a record of Griffis’ personal affairs and falls outside the
information necessary for the public to have
knowledge of the manner in which he conducted
his office and performed his duties. The court
said that a public record must also have some
relation to the official duties of the public
officer that holds the record.
THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL
OPINION.
|
